/f?7
KJ
b U Bmm
.1 I It I
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 3
um
DNRC.
WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
JULY 1977
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES « CONSERVATION
3 0864 00024826 3
cm the ou&tcx, quatity al ti
by
Duane A. Klarich
Jim Thomas
Water Quality Bureau
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 3
CGGMJOPSffEtflG
ODOCTDBtf 0tfGJG)ff
conducted by the
Water Resources Division
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
32 S. Ewing
Helena, MT 59601
Bob Anderson, Project Administrator
Shari Meats and Dave Lambert, Editors
for the
Old West Regional Commission
228 Hedden Empire Building
Billings, MT 59101
Kenneth A. Blackburn, Project Coordinator
July 1977
The Old West Regional Commission is a Federal-State
partnership designed to solve regional economic
problems and stimulate orderly economic growth in
the states of Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota and Wyoming. Established in 1972
under the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965, it is one of seven identical commissions
throughout the country engaged in formulating and
carrying out coordinated action plans for regional
economic development.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
State Cochairman
Gov. Thomas L. Judge of Montana
Alternate: Dean Hart
Federal Cochairman
George D. McCarthy
State Members
Gov. Edgar J
Alternate:
Herschler of Wyoming
Steve F. Freudenthal
Gov. J. James Exon of Nebraska
Alternate: Jon H. Oberg
Gov. Arthur A. Link of North Dakota
Alternate: Woody Gagnon
Gov. Richard F. Kneip of South Dakota
Alternate: Theodore R. Muenster
1730 K Street, N. W.
Suite 426
Washington, D. C. 20006
202/967-3491
COMMISSION OFFICES
201 Main Street
Suite D
Rapid City, South Dakota 57701
605/348-6310
n
Suite 228
Heddon-Empire Bui 1 din
Billings, Montana 591
406/657-6665
FOREWORD
The Old West Regional Commission wishes to express its appreciation for
this report to the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation,
and more specifically to those Department staff members who participated
directly in the project and in preparation of various reports, to Dr. Kenneth A.
Blackburn of the Commission staff who coordinated the project, and to the
subcontractors who also participated. The Yellowstone Impact Study was one
of the first major projects funded by the Commission that was directed at
investigating the potential environmental impacts relating to energy develop-
ment. The Commission is pleased to have been a part of this important research.
George D. McCarthy
Federal Cochairman
@<MtCvtfo
FIGURES vii
TABLES x
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT xx
PREFACE 1
The River 1
The Conflict 1
The Study 3
Acknowledgments 4
INTRODUCTION 5
Purpose 5
Scope 5
Measurement 6
Parameter Groups 8
Water Quality Index 11
Description of Study Area 12
Drainage Basins Examined and Associated Streams 12
METHODS 19
Data Sources and Chemical Analyses 19
United States Geological Survey 19
Montana Water Quality Bureau 24
Miscellaneous Sources and Other Investigations 31
Water Quality Reference Criteria 32
Rationale 32
Montana Stream and Water-Use Classifications 33
Montana Water Quality Criteria 34
Drinking Water and Surface Public Supply Criteria 36
Agricultural Criteria 36
Biological Criteria 40
Tabular and Statistical Considerations 49
Impacts of Water Withdrawals 54
Description of Methods 54
WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS IN THE YELLOWSTONE RIVER BASIN 63
Introduction 63
Mining 63
Drainage Water 63
Erosion and Sedimentation 63
Leaching 64
Miscellaneous 65
Control of Wastewaters From Mining 66
IV
Power Plants 67
Synthetic Fuel Plants 70
Control of Wastewaters from Coal -Conversion Facilities .... 71
Municipal and Industrial Wastes 73
Municipal Wastewater 73
Industrial Wastewater 75
Control of Municipal and Industrial Wastewaters 76
Irrigation Return Flow 77
Control of Wastewater from Irrigation 79
Nonpoint Sources of Pollution 80
Control of Pollution from Nonpoint Sources 81
Slurry Pipelines 81
EXISTING SITUATION • • • 83
Yellowstone River Mainstem Above the Mouth of the Clarks Fork
Yellowstone River 83
Yellowstone River--Clarks Fork River to Bighorn River 94
Yellowstone Mainstem 94
Miscellaneous Tributaries 107
Pryor, Arrow, and Fly Creeks 108
Little Bighorn River Drainage 114
Little Bighorn River Mainstem 114
Tributary Streams 119
Bighorn River Drainage 122
Bighorn River Mainstem 122
Beauvais Creek 129
Other Tributaries Above Hardin 134
Tullock Creek 139
Yellowstone River--Bighorn River to Powder River 141
Yellowstone Mainstem 141
Sarpy Creek Drainage 157
Armells Creek Drainage 163
Miscellaneous Tributaries and Sunday Creek 172
Rosebud Creek Drainage 177
Tongue River Drainage 188
Powder River Drainage 225
Yellowstone River--Powder River to Montana-North Dakota Border. . . 244
Yellowstone Mainstem 244
O'Fallon Creek Drainage 253
Tributary Streams 257
SUMMARY OF EXISTING SITUATION 261
Yellowstone River Mainstem 261
TDS Concentrations 261
Changes in Chemistry 261
Changes in Water Quality 264
Associated Drainages 265
TDS Concentrations 265
Salinity 267
PH Values 267
Temperature 267
Dissolved Oxygen 268
Organic Pollution 268
Chemical Composition 268
Turbidities, TSS, and Flow 269
Water Quality Degradation 270
Water Quality Index 270
Potential Water Quality Problems in Relation to Water Use 272
IMPACTS OF WATER WITHDRAWALS 305
Projections of Future Use 305
Potential Water Quality Effects by Subregion 305
Upper Yellowstone Basin 305
Bighorn Subbasin 311
Mid-Yellowstone Subbasin 317
Tongue Subbasin 327
Powder River Subbasin 343
Lower Yellowstone Subbasin 353
Sensitivity Analyses 362
Introduction 362
Distribution of Salt Return 362
Salt Pickup 365
Exogenous Influences 371
Dryland Farming 371
Saline Seep 371
Silviculture 371
Noncoal Mineral Extraction 372
Wyoming Activities 372
National and State Policies 372
Recommendations 372
APPENDIX A. Projections of Future Use 375
LITERATURE CITED 383
rtijccieb
1. Primary and Secondary Study Areas and Associated Subregions 13
2. Simplified Diagram of Water and Salt Movement 55
3. Median TDS Concentrations at Various Sites on the
Yellowstone River During Four Seasons of the Year 262
4. Median TSS Concentrations at Various Sites on the
Yellowstone River During Four Seasons of the Year 266
5. Average Monthly TDS Concentrations in the Yellowstone
River at Billings at 50th Percentile Values 310
6. Average Monthly TDS Concentrations in the Yellowstone
River at Billings at 90th Percentile Values 310
7. Average Monthly TDS Concentrations in the Bighorn River near
St. Xavier, 1968-74 312
8. Average Monthly TDS in the Bighorn River near Bighorn at
50th Percentile Values 316
9. Average Monthly TDS Concentrations in the Bighorn River near
Bighorn at 90th Percentile Values 316
10. Discharge Relationship between the Yellowstone River near
Miles City and the Yellowstone River near Sidney 318
11. TDS Relationship between the Yellowstone River near Miles
City and the Yellowstone River near Sidney 320
12. Comparison of Historical and Simulated TDS Concentrations
in the Yellowstone River near Miles City at 50th Percentile
Values 324
13. Comparison of Historical and Simulated TDS Concentrations
in the Yellowstone River near Miles City at 90th Percentile
Values 325
14. Comparison of Historical and Simulated TDS Concentrations in
the Tongue River near Miles City at 50th Percentile Values 333
15. Comparison of Historical and Simulated TDS Concentrations in
the Tongue River near Miles City at 90th Percentile Values 334
16. Comparison of TDS Concentrations in the Tongue River at Miles
City Computed from Records at Miles City and the State Border,
Assuming Complete Mixing in the Reservoir, and Using the Low
Level of Development at 50th Percentile Values 336
vii
17. Comparison of TDS Concentrations in the Tongue River at
Miles City Computed from Records at Miles City and the State
Border, Assuming Complete Mixing in the Reservoir, and Using
the Low Level of Development at 90th Percentile Values 337
18. Comparison of TDS Concentrations in the Tongue River at
Miles City Computed from Records at Miles City and the
State Border, Assuming Complete Mixing in the Reservoir,
and Using the Intermediate Level of Development at 50th
Percentile Values 338
19. Comparison of TDS Concentrations in the Tongue River at
Miles City Computed from Records at Miles City and the
State Border, Assuming Complete Mixing in the Reservoir,
and Using the Intermediate Level of Development at 90th
Percentile Values 339
20. Comparison of TDS Concentrations in the Tongue River at
Miles City Computed from Records at Miles City and the State
Border, Assuming Complete Mixing in the Reservoir, and Using
the High Level of Development at 50th Percentile Values 340
21. Comparison of TDS Concentrations in the Tongue River at
Miles City and the State Border, Assuming Complete Mixing
in the Reservoir, and Using the High Level of Development
at 90th Percentile Values 341
22. Effects of Reservoir Storage on TDS Concentrations in the
Powder River near Moorhead 345
23. Effects of Active Storage Level on Average Monthly TDS
Concentrations in the Powder River near Locate 346
24. Average Monthly TDS Concentrations in the Powder River near
Locate at 50th Percentile Values with 1,150,000 af Storage 349
25. Average Monthly TDS Concentrations in the Powder River at
Locate at 90th Percentile Values with 1,150,000 af Storage 350
26. Comparison of Historical and Simulated TDS Concentrations
in the Yellowstone River near Sidney at 50th Percentile Flow
Values 358
27. Comparison of Historical and Simulated TDS Concentrations
in the Yellowstone River near Sidney at 90th Percentile Flow
Values 359
28. Comparison of SO4 and TDS Concentrations in the Yellowstone
River near Sidney 360
29. Effect on TDS Concentrations of Changing the Monthly Distri-
bution of Salt Return from Irrigation in the Tongue River near
Miles City, Using the Intermediate Level of Development 363
vi ii
30. Effects on TDS Concentrations of Changing the Monthly
Distribution of Salt Return from Irrigation in the Tongue
River near Miles City, Using the High Level of Development 364
31. Effects on TDS Levels of Adjusting the Monthly Distribution
of Salt Return from Irrigation in the Yellowstone River
near Sidney, Using the Intermediate Level of Development "'rr
32. Effects on TDS Levels of Adjusting the Monthly Distribution
of Salt Return from Irrigation in the Yellowstone River
near Sidney, Using the High Level of Development 0,r"
33. Water Temperatures Observed on the Lower Yellowstone
Project, 1971 368
34. Effects of Salt Pickup Rate on TDS Concentrations in the
Yellowstone River near Sidney, Using the Intermediate Level
of Development at 50th Percentile Flows 369
35. Effects of Salt Pickup Rate on TDS Concentrations in the
Tongue River near Miles City, Using the Intermediate Level
of Development at 50th Percentile Flows 370
IX
7<xUeA
1. Methods of Analysis 7
2. Water Quality Monitoring Stations in the Yellowstone River
Basin of Montana Operated by the USGS between September 1965
and September 1974 21
3. Water Quality Monitoring Stations in Operation between
October 1965 and September 1974 with Published Records
Maintained by the USGS on the Yellowstone River and in
the Yellowstone River Basin of Montana below this
Confluence 22
4. Water Quality Monitoring Stations Maintained by the USGS
in the Study Area for Which Information is Being or Has
Been Obtained on Several Parameters 23
5. Additional USGS Water Quality Monitoring Sites in
Operation During 1976 Which Had No Published Records
as of July 1976 25
6. Streams Sampled by the State WQB in the Secondary and
Primary Inventory Areas of the Yellowstone River Basin
Since the Summer of 1973 28
7. Hardness and salinity classification 33
8. Montana Water Quality Criteria 35
9. Selected Water Quality Criteria and Standards for Drinking
Water and Public Surface Supply 37
10. Water Quality Criteria for Stock as Set Forth by the
California Water Quality Control Board 38
11. Water Quality Criteria Recommended by the EPA for Stock 38
12. Threshold Salinity (TDS) Levels for Farm Animals 39
13. Use and Effect of Saline Water on Livestock and Poultry 39
14. Montana Salinity Classification of Waters 39
15. Summary Classification of Irrigation Waters and Associated
Water Quality Criteria and Recommended Maximum Concentrations
of Trace Elements for All Plants in Continuously Used
Irrigation Waters
16. Recommended Maximum Concentrations of Trace Elements for
All Plants in Continuously Used Irrigation Waters
17. Relative Tolerances of Various Crops and Forage to
Salinity and Boron 43
18. Impact Reference System for Turbidity and Suspended
Sediment 47
19. Recommended Maximum Concentrations of Trace Elements for
Freshwater Aquatic Life and for Marine Aquatic Life 50
20. Sample Calculation of TDS in the Tongue River at Miles
City Assuming a Low Level of Development 58
21. Quantity and Nature of Major Wastewater Streams from
270 x 106 SCF/day Plant Proposed for Wyoming 71
22. Physical Parameters of Waters from Armells Creek and
Montana Power Company Ponds in and near Col strip 74
23. Summary of Salt and Water Discharges in the Yellowstone
River Basin, 1944-1973 78
24. Nonpoint Waste Sources and Characteristics in the
Yellowstone River Basin 80
25. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the
Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs 84
26. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the
Yellowstone River near Livingston 85
27. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured on
Miscellaneous Sites on the Yellowstone River Between
Big Timber and Columbus 86
28. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the
Yellowstone River at Laurel Above the Clarks Fork
Yellowstone River 87
29. Summary of Trace Element and Miscellaneous Constituent
Concentrations Measured in the Yellowstone River above the
Confluence of the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River 92
30. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the
Yellowstone River near Laurel below the Confluence of
the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River (Duck Creek Bridge) 96
31. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the
Yellowstone River at Billings
32. Summary of the Physical Parmeters Measured in the
Yellowstone River at Huntley
33. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the
Yellowstone River at Huntley "8
Yellowstone River at Custer
99
XI
34. Proportions of sodium and sulfate in the Yellowstone
River below Laurel 100
35. BOD5 Values and Median TOC and COD Concentrations above
Laurel and in the Laurel-to-Custer Reach 103
36. Summary of Trace Element and Miscellaneous Constituent
Concentration Measured in the Yellowstone River between
Laurel and Custer 104
37. Median TR and Dissolved Concentrations of Sr, Fe, and Mn
below Corwin Springs 106
38. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Spring,
Duck, and Canyon Creeks (Minor Yellowstone Tributaries), and
in East Fork Creek (a Minor Tributary to Pryor Creek) 108
39. Summary of Trace Element and Miscellaneous Constituent
Concentrations Measured in Various Secondary Streams in
the Yellowstone Drainage between Laurel and Custer 110
40. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Pryor
Creek Drainage and in Arrow Creek near Ballantine-Worden HI
41. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Fly Creek
at Pompeys Pillar H2
42. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Little
Bighorn River near Wyola 115
43. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Little
Bighorn River near Hardin 118
44. Summary of Trace Element and Miscellaneous Constitutent
Concentrations Measured in the Little Bighorn River Drainage. . . . 120
45. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Various
Tributaries to the Little Bighorn River 121
46. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Bighorn
River at St. Xavier '"
47. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Bighorn
River near Hardin 125
48. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Bighorn
River at Bighorn '2°
49. Summary of Trace Element and Miscellaneous Constituent
Concentrations Measured in the Bighorn River '2°
50. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Beauvais
Creek near St. Xavier (Bighorn River tributary) 30
Xll
51. Summary of Trace Element and Miscellaneous Constituent
Concentrations Measured in Tributaries to the Bighorn River 132
52. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Various
Tributaries to the Bighorn River 135
53. Summary of the Physical Parameters and Total Recoverable
Metals Measured in Sage Creek near Warren During the
August-October Period 138
54. Summary of the Physical Parameters and Trace Elements
Measured in the Tullock Creek Drainage 140
55. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the
Yellowstone River at Myers 144
56. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the
Yellowstone River near Forsyth 145
57. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the
Yellowstone River near Miles City 146
58. Salinity Change Per River Mile in the Bighorn-to-Powder
Segment 147
59. Downstream Composition Changes on the Bighorn-to-Powder
Reach of the Yellowstone River 150
60. Average May-October Warm-Weather Data for Seauential Sites 150
61. Summary of Miscellaneous Constituent and Trace Element
Concentrations Measured in the Yellowstone River at Myers
and near Forsyth
62. Summary of Miscellaneous Constituent and Trace Element
Concentrations Measured in the Yellowstone River near
Miles City 154
63. Concentration Increases of TR and Dissolved Forms of Fe,
Mn, and Sr in the Yellowstone River above Custer and at
Myers, Forsyth, and Miles City
64. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Upper
Sarpy Creek Drainage near Westmoreland 158
65. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Sarpy
Creek near Hysham
66. Summary of Miscellaneous Constituent and Trace Element
Concentrations Measured in the Sarpy Creek Drainage 162
67. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the East Fork
of Armells Creek and Sheep Creek Tributary (One Sample) near
Col strip 164
Xll 1
68. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the West
Fork of Armells Creek near Col strip 155
69. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Armells
Creek near Forsyth 155
70. Mean (Ca + Mg):Na and HCC^SC^ Ratios from the Mouth and
East and West Forks of Armells Creek 167
71. Summary of Miscellaneous Constituent and Trace Element
Concentrations Measured in the Armells Creek Drainage 169
72. Summary of Trace Element Concentrations Measured in the
Armells Creek Drainage 170
73. Summary of Miscellaneous Constituent and Trace Element
Concentrations Measured in Armells Creek near Forsyth 171
74. Trace Elements in Armells Creek Grouped According to their
Maximum and Median, TR and Dissolved Concentrations in
Relation to Water Quality Criteria 172
75. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Small
Tributaries to the Yellowstone River between the Bighorn
and Powder Rivers 174
76. Summary of the Total Recoverable Metals Measured in Small
Tributaries to the Yellowstone River between the Bighorn
and Powder Rivers 174
77. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Sunday Creek
near Miles City 175
78. Summary of the Total Recoverable Metals Measured in Sunday
Creek near Miles City 175
79. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Upper
Reach of Rosebud Creek near Kirby-Busby 178
80. Summary of Total Recoverable Metals Measured in the Upper
Reach of Rosebud Creek near Kirby-Busby 178
81. Low-Flow and High-Flow Levels of (Ca + Mg):NA, Ca:Mg, and
HC03:S04 in Rosebud Creek 179
82. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Middle
Reach of Rosebud Creek near Col strip 180
83. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Lower
Reach of Rosebud Creek near Rosebud 181
84. Summary of Miscellaneous Constituent and Trace Element
Concentrations Measured in the Middle and Lower Reaches of
Rosebud Creek 183
xiv
and High Flows in the Y<
;• ::• .:■
: : £f : . ;
; - :.t:-.
";-
n.
It. li' - - ■ -. ■
fl.
:::
::•£
•;-
Sunaary of Hisc
I : - : e - : -i : : :
102. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Hanging
Woman Creek near Birney 212
103. Summary of Miscellaneous Constituent and Trace Element
Concentrations Measured in Hanging Woman and Otter Creeks 215
104. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Otter
Creek at Ashland 217
105. Effects of Hanging Woman and Otter Creeks Towards
Increasing TDS Levels in the Tongue River below the Dam 218
106. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the
Pumpkin Creek Drainage 221
107. Summary of the Miscellaneous Constituent and Trace Element
Concentrations Measured in the Pumpkin Creek Drainage (mg/1) . . . 222
108. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Powder
River near Moorhead-Broadus '
109. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Powder
River near Locate-Terry 228
110. Calculated Percentage Increases in TDS of the Yellowstone
River from Miles City to below the Confluence of the
Powder River
112. Summary of Miscellaneous Constituent and Trace Element
Concentrations Measured in the Powder River
229
111. Percentage of Powder River Samples with TDS and SC
Concentrations in Particular Ranges "'
233
113. Calculated Percentage Increases. in TSS in the Yellowstone
from near Miles City to below the Confluence of the Powder .... 35
114. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Little
Powder River near the Montana-Wyoming State Line and near
Broadus "y
115. Summary of Miscellaneous Constituent and Trace Element
Concentrations Measured in Tributaries to the Powder River ....
116. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the Mizpah
Creek Drainage
117. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured on Miscellaneous _
Sites on the Yellowstone River between Terry and Intake
118. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the
Yellowstone River near Sidney, Montana
xvi
119. Summary of Miscellaneous Constituent and Trace Element
Concentrations Measured in the Yellowstone River between
Terry and near the Montana-North Dakota Border 247
120. Percentage Increases in TDS Concentrations and SC Levels
Downstream in the Yellowstone River from Miles City
to Sidney 249
121. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in the 0' Fallon
Creek Drainage 254
122. Summary of Trace Element and Miscellaneous Constituent
Concentrations Measured in the O'Fallon Creek Drainage and
in Small Tributaries to the Yellowstone River below
Fallon, Montana 256
123. Summary of the Physical Parameters Measured in Small
Tributaries to the Yellowstone River below Fallon,
Montana 258
124. Ratios of Median Calcium to Sodium Concentrations and
Median Bicarbonate to Sulfate Concentrations at Various
Sites on the Yellowstone River Through Four Seasons of
the Year 263
125. Water Quality Index (WQI) of Samples Collected by the
State WQB from Various Streams, Stream Reaches, and
Drainage Areas in the Yellowstone Basin 271
126. Summary of Water Quality in the Yellowstone River Basin
of Montana for Surface Water Public Supply and Drinking
Water 274
127. Summary of Water Quality in the Yellowstone River Basin
of Montana for Livestock 279
128. Summary of Water Quality in the Yellowstone River Basin
of Montana for Irrigation 282
129. Summary of Water Quality in the Yellowstone River Basin
of Montana for Aquatic Biota 287
130. Summary of the Potential for Organic Pollution in the
Yellowstone River Basin of Montana 295
131. Summary of Violations of State Water Quality Standards in
the Yellowstone River Basin of Montana 297
132. Summary of Aesthetic Quality in the Yellowstone River Basin
of Montana 299
133. Summary of Miscellaneous Constituents in the Yellowstone
River Basin of Montana 303
xv ii
134. Regression Equations Between TDS (in mg/1) and Monthly
Discharge (Q) (in Acre-feet) in the Yellowstone River
at Billings, 1951-1958 and 1963-69 306
135. TDS Values in the Yellowstone River at Billings, Assuming
a Low Level of Development without the Fish and Game
Reservation 307
136. TDS Values in the Yellowstone River at Billings, Assuming
an Intermediate Level of Development without the Fish
and Game Reservation 308
137. TDS Values in the Yellowstone River near Billings, Assuming
a High Level of Development without the Fish and Game
Reservation 309
138. TDS Values in the Bighorn River, Assuming an Intermediate
Level of Development without the Fish and Game Flows 314
139. TDS Values in the Bighorn River at Bighorn, Assuming a
High Level of Development without the Fish and Game Flows 315
140. TDS Values in the Mid-Yellowstone River, Assuming a Low
Level of Development with No Reservation of Fish
and Game Flows 321
141. TDS Values in the Mid-Yellowstone River, Assuming an
Intermediate Level of Development with No Reservation
of Fish and Game Flows 322
142. TDS Values in the Mid-Yellowstone River, Assuming a High
Level of Development with No Reservation of Fish and
Game Flows 323
143. Regression Equation between TDS Concentrations and Monthly
Discharge (Q) in the Tongue River near Miles City, 1951-1969. . . . 328
144. TDS Values in the Tongue River, Assuming a Low Level of
Development with 100 Percent of the Northern Great Plains
Resources Program's Fish and Game Flows 329
145. TDS Values in the Tongue River, Assuming an Intermediate
Level of Development with 60 Percent of the Northern Great
Plains Resources Program's Fish and Game Flows 330
146. TDS Values in the Tongue River Assuming a High Level of
Development without the Fish and Game Flows 331
147. TDS Values in the Tongue River, Assuming a High Level of
Development with Fish and Game Flows 332
148. Regression Equation between TDS Concentrations and Monthly
Discharge (Q) in the Tongue River at the State Border near
Decker, 1966-1970 335
xviii
149. Regression Equations between TDS and Monthly Discharge (Q)
in the Powder River near Locate, 1951-1963 344
150. TDS Values in the Powder River, Assuming a Low Level of
Development with 1,150,000 af Storage 347
151. TDS Values in the Powder River at Locate, Assuming a
High Level of Development with 1,150,000 af Storage 348
152. Concentrations of Dissolved Minerals and SAR Value
That Would Be Released from a Reservoir Constructed on
the Powder River, Based upon Historical Records 351
153. Regression Equations between TDS and Monthly Discharge
in the Yellowstone River near Sidney, 1951-1969 354
154. TDS Values in the Lower Yellowstone River near Sidney,
Assuming a Low Level of Development 355
155. TDS Values in the Lower Yellowstone River near Sidney
Assuming an Intermediate Level of Development 356
156. TDS Values in the Lower Yellowstone River near Sidney,
Assuming a High Level of Development 357
xix
rfwne<MAti<MA ccted m ttu& tejuvit
af
af/y
APHA
APO
b/d
BLH
BOD
BODr
C J
cfs
cm
COD
DHES
DNRC
DO
E
EIS
EPA
F
FC
FWPCAA
hm;?
hnr/y
JTU
km
KWH
MBAS
m
me/1
mg/1
mg P/l
mg N/1
mi
mmaf
mmaf/d
mm af/y
mmcfd
mm
mmt/y
MPDES
m3/sec
mw
N
NGPRP
MI
acre-feet
acre-feet per year
American Public Health Association
area-wide planning organization
barrels per day
Bureau of Land Management
biochemical oxynen demand
five-day biochemical oxygen demand
Celsius
cubic feet per second
centimeters
chemical oxygen demand
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
dissolved oxygen
estimated flow
environmental impact statement
Environmental Protection Agency
Fahrenheit
fecal col i forms
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972
qallons per minute
cubic hectometers
cubic hectometers per year
Jackson Turbidity Units
kilometers
kilowatt hours
methylene blue active substance--dye measure of
apparent detergents
meters
milliequivalents per liter
milligrams per liter
milligrams phosphorus per liter
milligrams nitrogen per liter
mile
million acre- feet
million acre- feet per day
million acre-feet per year
million cubic feet per day
millimeter
million tons per year
Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
cubic meters per second
megawatts
nitrogen
Northern Great Plains Resources Program
no information
[JTAC National Technical Advisory Committee
O&G oil and grease
P phosphorus
PHS Public Health Service
RC radiochemical
S sensitive
SAR sodium adsorption ratio
SC specific conductance
SCF/D standard cubic feet per day
ST semi-tolerant
STORET a national data storage & retreival system
T tolerant
TA total alkalinity
TDS total dissolved solids
TH total hardness
TOC total organic carbon
TR total recoverable
TSIN total soluble inorganic nitrogen
TSS total suspended sediment
Turb turbidity
T/d tons per day
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDI United States Department of the Interior
USDHEW United States Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
WRCB Water Rights Control Board
WQB Water Quality Bureau
WQCB Water Quality Control Board
WQI water quality index
y mi cro
yg/1 microarams per liter
ymhos/cm micromhos per centimeter
< less than
> greater than
xxi
'Preface
THE RIVER
The Yellowstone River Basin of southeastern Montana, northern Wyoming,
and western North Dakota encompasses approximately 180,000 km2 (71,000 square
miles), 92,200 (35,600) of them in Montana. Montana's portion of the basin
comprises 24 percent of the state's land; where the river crosses the
border into North Dakota, it carries about 8.8 million acre-feet of water per
year, 21 percent of the state's average annual outflow. The mainstem of the
Yellowstone rises in northwestern Wyoming and flows generally northeast to its
confluence with the Missouri River just east of the Montana-North Dakota
border; the river flows through Montana for about 550 of its 680 miles. The
major tributaries, the Boulder, Stillwater, Clarks Fork, Bighorn, Tongue, and
Powder rivers, all flow in a northerly direction. The western part of the
basin is part of the middle Rocky Mountains physiographic province; the
eastern section is located in the northern Great Plains (Rocky Mountain
Association of Geologists 1972).
THE CONFLICT
Historically, agriculture has been Montana's most important industry. In
1975, over 40 percent of the primary employment in Montana was provided by
agriculture (Montana Department of Community Affairs 1976). In 1973, a good
year for agriculture, the earnings of labor and proprietors involved in
agricultural production in the fourteen counties that approximate the
Yellowstone Basin were over $141 million, as opposed to $13 million for
mining and $55 million for manufacturing. Cash receipts for Montana's
agricultural products more than doubled from 1968 to 1973. Since that year,
receipts have declined because of unfavorable market conditions: some
improvement may be in sight, however. In 1970, over 75 percent of the
Yellowstone Basin's land was in agricultural use (State Conservation Needs
Committee 1970). Irrigated agriculture is the basin's largest water use,
consuming annually about 1.5 million acre-feet (af) of water (Montana DNRC
1977).
There is another industry in the Yellowstone Basin which, though it con-
sumes little water now, may require more in the future, and that is the coal
development industry. In 1971, the North Central Power Study (North Central
Power Study Coordinating Committee 1971) identified 42 potential power plant
sites in the five-state (Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and
Colorado) northern Great Plains region, 21 of them in Montana. These plants,
all to be fired by northern Great Plains coal, would generate 200,000 megawatts
(mw) of electricity, consume 3.4 million acre-feet per year (mnaf/y) of water,
and result in a large population increase. Administrative, economic, legal,
and technological considerations have kept most of these conversion facilities
identified in the North Central Power Study as necessary for 1930, on the
drawing board or in the courtroom. There is now no chance of their being
completed by that date or even soon after, which will delay and diminish the
economic benefits some basin residents had expected as a result of coal
development. On the other hand, contracts have been signed for the mining
of large amounts of Montana coal, and applications have been approved not
only for new and expanded coal mines but also for Col strip Units 3 and 4,
twin 700-mw, coal -fired, electric generating plants.
In 1975, over 22 million tons of coal were mined in the state, up from
14 million in 1974, 11 million in 1973, and 1 million in 1969. By 1980, even
if no new contracts are entered, Montana's annual coal production will exceed
40 million tons. Coal reserves, estimated at over 50 billion economically
strippable tons (Montana Energy Advisory Council 1976), pose no serious con-
straint to the levels of development projected by this study, which range
from 186.7 to 462.8 million tons stripped in the basin annually by the year
2000. Strip mining itself involves little use of water. How important the
energy industry becomes as a water user in the basin will depend on: 1) how
much of the coal mined in Montana is exported, and by what means, and 2) by
what process and to what end product the remainder is converted within the
state. If conversion follows the patterns projected in this study, the energy
industry will use from 48,350 to 326,740 af of water annually by the year 2000.
A third consumptive use of water, municipal use, is also bound to
increase as the basin population increases in response to increased employment
opportunities in agriculture and the energy industry.
Can the Yellowstone River satisfy all of these demands for her water?
Perhaps in the mainstem. But the tributary basins, especially the Bighorn,
Tongue, and Powder, have much smaller flows, and it is in those basins that
much of the increased agricultural and industrial water demand is expected.
Some impacts could occur even in the mainstem. What would happen to
water quality after massive depletions? How would a change in water quality
affect existing and future agricultural .industrial , and municipal users?
What would happen to fish, furbearers, and migratory waterfowl that are
dependent on a certain level of instream flow? Would the river be as
attractive a place for recreation after dewatering?
One of the first manifestations of Montana's growing concern for water
in the Yellowstone Basin and elsewhere in the state was the passage of
significant legislation. The Water Use Act of 1973, which, among other
things, mandates the adjudication of all existing water rights and makes
possible the reservation of water for future beneficial use, was followed
by the Water Moratorium Act of 1974, which delayed action on major
applications for Yellowstone Basin water for three years. The moratorium,
by any standard a bold action, was prompted by a steadily increasing rush of
applications and filings for water (mostly for industrial use) which, in two
tributary basins to the Yellowstone, exceeded supply. The DNRC's intention
during the moratorium was to study the basin's water and related land
resources, as well as existing and future need for the basin's water, so that
the state would be able to proceed wisely with the allocation of that water
The study which resulted in this series of reports was one of the fruits of'
that intention. Several other Yellowstone water studies were undertaken
during the moratorium at the state and federal levels. Early in 1977 the
45th Montana Legislature extended the moratorium to allow more time to con-
sider reservations of water for future use in the basin.
THE STUDY
nf .. Thf. Yellowstone Impact Study, conducted by the Water Resources Division
the 0?5 S^tDpPa-tme? V°f N3tUral ReS°UrCeS and Conservation and fin n ed
Dhvs?ra? h?n?nnfr9rnalHC°TSS10n,.Was desi"gned t0 eval uate the Potential
phys cal, biological, and water use impacts of water withdrawals and water
Mont IrenThpn«tthS ■'''I18 ^ l0WSr reaChSS °f the ^nowstone Rive" B in in
Montana. The study's plan of operation was to project three possible levels
of future agricultural, industrial, and municipal development in the
leni ImnLtf n" ^ ^ St!;eamfl0W depletions associated with that develop-
L fi f" river morphoogy and water quality were then assessed,
and finally, the impacts of altered streamflow, morphology, and water
x? ll noltPr" f3Ct0rS aS mi'fat0ry bl>ds' ^be^eJs, rlcreatVn and
existing water users were analyzed.
1Q7S TthhoSwy bTn in the fal1 0f 1974' ^ its inclusion in December of
1976, the information generated by the study had already been used for a
number of moratorium-related projects-the EIS on reservations oTwater in
the Yellowstone Basin, for example (Montana DNRC 1976). The study resulted
in a final report summarizing all aspects of the study and in eleven
specialized technical reports:
Report No. 1 Future Development Projections and Hvdrologic Model ina in
the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana"
Report No. 2 The Effect of Altered Streamflow on the Hydrology and
Geomorphology of the Yellowstone River 3asin, Montana.
Report No. 3 The Effect of Altered Streamflow on the Water Quality of
the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana.
Report No. 4 The Adequacy of Montana's Regulatory Framework for Water
Quality Control
Report No. 5 Aquatic Invertebrates of the Yellowstone River Basin
Montana.
Report No. 6
Report No. 7
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on Furbearing Mammals of
the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana.
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on Migratory Birds of the
Yellowstone River Basin, Montana.
Report No. S
Report No. 9
Report No. 10
Report No. 11
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on Fish of the
Yellowstone and Tongue Rivers, Montana.
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on Existing Municipal
and Agricultural Users of the Yellowstone River Basin,
Montana.
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on Water-Based Recreation
in the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana.
The Economics of Altered Streamflow in the Yellowstone
River Basin, Montana.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A special thanks is due to Shari Meats, the editor, who saw this massive
project through to completion single-handedly, even at the expense of leisure
time (for months) and alteration of her personal plans. To save time, she
typed most of this report herself.
Other DNRC personnel provided assistance. Barbara Williams and Janet
Cawl field typed parts of the report. Graphics were coordinated and performed
by Gary Wolf, with the assistance of June Virag and of D.C. Howard, who also
designed and executed the cover.
Cindi Koch, with the Billings office of the Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences' Water Quality Bureau, typed the first draft of the
report.
IvtfaMLiCtioa
PURPOSE
The overall goal of this study was to investigate the impacts of coal de-
velopment—existing and potential --on water quality in the Yellowstone River
Basin. Specific tasks included:
1) the accumulation and analyses of water quality data for all
significant surface waters in the area;
2) the investigation of water quality problems directly associated
with mining and energy conversion;
3) an investigation of the effects of stream dewatering on water
quality; and
4) recommendations on methods of improving the state's water
quality program.
Alterations in water quality are expected to occur in streams of the
Yellowstone drainage as a result of water withdrawals and development. To
assess potential impacts on beneficial uses of these surface waters, the cur-
rent baseline water quality status of the affected streams must be determined
through analyses of available chemical and biological data. Baseline data
provide a reference point for assessing the degree of potential impact.
For example, a particular surface water might be judged through such
assessments as unsuitable for irrigation but of adequate quality for the
maintenance of a warm-water fishery and of excellent quality for the watering
of stock. Negative alterations of stream quality, therefore, would not affect
its use for irrigation but could affect the stream's fishery and reduce the
stream's value as a source of water for stock. Assessments of available data
should illustrate such existing use-quality relationships and indicate the
greatest potential point of impact.
These considerations describe the primary purposes for initiating this
phase of the study: the gathering and analyses of water quality data for all
significant surface waters in the prescribed areas. Such analyses were com-
pleted in part by delineating the critical water quality parameters of a
system through the comparisons of its physical, chemical, and biological data
with pertinent reference criteria and water quality standards.
SCOPE
In addition to a thorough inventory of baseline water quality of streams
in the study area, present and potential activities in the basin that affect
water quality were reviewed. Using mathematical models and computer simula-
tions, estimates were made of future changes in water quality resulting from
new diversions for irrigation, energy conversion, and municipal use projected
in the three levels of development explained in appendix A. The primary water
quality parameter modeled was total dissolved solids (TDS), but other para-
meters were considered where appropriate. The thirty-year period from 1944
to 1973 was the basis for all analyses.
MEASUREMENT
To completely describe the water quality in any given aquatic system,
analyses of water samples must include a large number of physical and biolog-
ical parameters. STORET has the potential to store data from the measurements
of over 1,500 physical, chemical, and biological parameters. In addition, the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Water Quality Bureau (state WQB)
of the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences (Montana DHES),
between 1965 and 1975, analyzed between 58 and 131 distinct water quality para-
meters in samples from the Yellowstone River above Custer, Montana (USDI 1966-
1974b). Data from such analyses include the direct measurements of the concen-
trations of a variety of single chemical constituents in the samples either in
their dissolved (on filtered aliquots) or total (on unfiltered aliquots) forms;
calcium, magnesium, bicarbonate, carbonate, and the metals are some of the con-
stituents measured, typically in milligrams per liter (mg/1) or micrograms per
liter (ug/1) but occasionally as milliequivalents per liter (me/1). Determin-
ations of particular parameters in combination have also been made, including
total hardness (calcium plus magnesium), total alkalinity (HC0~ + COZ + OH"),
sodium adsorption ratios (Hem 1970), dissolved solids as the sam of prominent
constituents, and sums of cations-anions. Some constituents can be measured
in a variety of different forms through the various steps of their analyses,
such as phosphorus (total-P, total ortho-P, dissolved-P, dissolved ortho-P
and organic-P, among others), and some of the parameters afford an indirect
measurement of general features of the water. For example, specific conduc-
tance indicates salinity of dissolved solids and turbidity; suspended sediment,
transparency, and chlorophyll indicate algal biomass. In addition, sample
water can be used in various laboratory or field tests to define aspects of
its quality apart from the chemical analyses, e.g., in bioassays which can be
used to delineate a water's possible toxicity or eutrophic potential.
Data for all of these parameters can be used to characterize certain as-
pects of a water's quality. In general, however, complete descriptions of
the water quality in a lake or stream cannot be made because analyses cannot
be directed to the entire spectrum of possible parameters; rather, a small
subset of parameters is defined by the objectives of the sampling program or
study. In addition, the parametric composition of the subsets can vary among
the various sampling programs within any given region. As a result, dis-
cussions of water quality must revolve around a small percentage of the total
possible parameters; such parameters have data which are consistently avail-
able through the time frame and between the streams and locations under con-
sideration.
Several parameters meet these criteria for this inventory and form the
basis of a water quality discussion on the Yellowstone River Basin; these are
listed in table 1 as common constituents, critical nutrients, metals, and
field parameters. In addition to iron, boron, and arsenic, other metals with
TABLE 1. Methods of analysis.
Parameter
Method
Common Constituents—Cations
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Hardness
Atomic absorption
EDTA titration^
EDTA titration .
Atomic absorption0
EDTA titration
Common Constituents--Anions
Chloride
Mercuric nitrate, titration
Thorin titration
Acid titration
Complexone
Acid titration
Sulfate
Bicarbonate-Carbonate
Fluoride
Alkalinity
Critical Nutrients
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Nitrate + Nitrite-Nitrogen
Orthophosphate- Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus
Phenyl ate
Hydrazine reduction, diazotization '
Single reagent
Persulfate digestion, single reagent
Metals
Most metals
Iron
Boron
Arsenic
Atomic absorption .
Ferron-orthophenanthrol ine
Carmin
Silver di ethyl dithiocarbamatec
Field Parameters
Dissolved oxygen
pH
Specific conductance
Temperature
Turbidity
Fecal col i forms
Biochemical oxygen demand
Modified Winkler
Potentiometric (meter)
l.'heatstone bridge (meter)
Calibrated mercury thermometer
Nephelometric ^
Membrane filter, colony counts '
Incubation, modified Uinkler '
NOTE: Many of these analyses were completed using a Technicon auto-
analyzer.
*APHA et al. 1971.
DBrown et al . 1970.
^Millipore Corporation 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1974a.
relatively consistent data include manganese, copper, zinc, cadmium, and mer-
cury, however, several of the metals were only sporadically analyzed through
the various sampling programs in the region. These and other parameters with
less consistent data (e.g., pesticides and radiochemical variables) were con-
sidered as available for a particular stream or basin.
PARAMETER GROUPS
Related water quality parameters can be combined into various groups for
the general purpose of organizing the water quality discussions. The grouping
employed for this inventory was adapted from that used by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) in its National Water Quality Inventory (USEPA
1974b); the EPA's system was modified slightly to better conform with the
types and amounts of data available on the Yellowstone Basin. As a result,
five parameter groups were defined for this inventory: (1) physical factors,
(2) oxygen status, (3) eutrophic potential, (4) salinity and common ions, and
(5) toxic and harmful substances and health hazards. These groups and their
associated parameters are briefly described below; more complete descriptions
of these groups and their associated implications as pollutants are available
in the EPA's report (USEPA 1974b).
There is some similarity between groups; many of the parameters placed
into one of the groups could easily fit into one or two of the others in par-
ticular situations. Some of the parameters in these groups definitely cause
pollution and detract from the quality of water for man's activities; consid-
erations of such pollutants formed the crux of the EPA's national inventory.
However, some of the water quality parameters are not so obviously pollution-
causing because they arise from natural features or nonpoint sources. Never-
theless, they still detract from water quality and its beneficial use. Both
types of parameters are considered in this inventory. Following are descrip-
tions of the five parameter groups.
Physical Factors
Flow, which describes the size of a stream and provides part of the data
necessary for calculating loads, can be classified as a physical factor. Load
data for a parameter provides the requisite information for judging the poten-
tial effect of a tributary stream or point discharge upon the receiving waters.
Temperature is another physical factor. Changes in temperature primarily
detract from the biotic aspects of an aquatic system by altering its biological
composition and the rates of biological activity.
Transparency is another physical factor that can, upon alteration, affect
biological systems (e.g., by reducing light penetration). Transparency is
generally measured indirectly through turbidity. High levels of turbidity
imply low transparencies and aesthetic degradation of a stream or lake.
Suspended sediment and suspended solids are physical factors that can be
determined directly or, through the measurement of turbidity, indirectly. High
levels of suspended materials can also directly affect biotic systems and can
restrict other uses of the water, such as recreation and public surface supply.
High levels of suspended sediment in a stream are typically derived from natur-
al or nonpoint sources.
Color is another physical factor, but inadequate data are available for
consideration of this parameter. Only a few measurements of water color have
been made in the Yellowstone Basin.
Oxygen Status
Adequate levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) are critical in aquatic systems
for the maintenance of most aquatic life. Low levels of DO (less than that
expected on the basis of a system's temperature and pressure profile—less
than 100 percent saturation) often indicate organic pollution and oxidation
of organic materials. Organic pollution can arise from a variety of point
and nonpoint sources (including runoff from agricultural areas, municipal
and industrial point-source discharges, storm sewers, sanitary sewer over-
flows, and unsewered discharges) and from natural sources, e.g., inputs of
soil organic matter (humus), animal droppings, and vegetative debris such as
leaves. DO expressed as percentage of saturation is an inverse measure of
organic pollution; i.e., lower values suggest greater levels of organic input
into the water tested. Other parameters, such as five-day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5), are more valuable in directly quantifying the magnitude of this
type of problem. Considerable BOD5 and DO data are available from streams in
the Yellowstone Basin. Data for two other common indices of organic pollution-
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total organic carbon (TOC)--are relatively
sparse and sporadic in this drainage.
Eutrophic Potential
Eutrophication is the process of nutrient enrichment in a body of water,
typically accompanied by increases in plant growth and production which can lead
to nuisance algal blooms and macrophyte growths with associated odor and taste
problems, oxygen reductions upon decay, and aesthetic degradation. Eutrophi-
cation occurs naturally with the normal aging (in geologic time) of streams and
lakes, but this process can be and has been greatly accelerated by inputs from
point and nonpoint sources of pollution in recent historic time.
Numerous chemical elements are required by aquatic plants in varying de-
grees for their optimum growth and development; such constituents in the water
are classified as nutrients. This includes the macronutrients, a group of
elements required by plants in relatively large amounts (Ca, Mg, S, C, P, and
N, among others). Plants also require, in extremely small amounts, a group of
elements called the micronutrients (Zn, Cu, B, Co, Mn, Mo, and Fe), but all of
these parameters, occurring below critical concentrations, can be equally
limiting to plant growth. Attention is generally directed to nitrogen (N) or
phosphorus (P) as the most likely limiting factor(s) in aquatic systems. High
concentrations of these constituents imply a high eutrophic potential in a
lake or stream, and additional inputs of N and P, when limiting, have been
found to greatly increase plant production. For this inventory, N and P are
assumed to be the critical limiting nutrients in the Yellowstone River Basin.
There are several forms of phosphorus in water; this is also true of
nitrogen. However, N and P data in the Yellowstone drainage are available
primarily as (NO? + NC^J-N or NO3 - N and as ortho-P. Some analyses have
also been completed for ammonia -nitrogen and total-P, but available data are
incomplete for the bulk of the N and P species, including total-N, Kjeldahl-N,
organic-N, and organic-P. As a result, N02 + NO3 (or NO3, and NH3 as avail-
able) and ortho-P (and/or total-P) are considered to be the prime indices of
eutrophic potential in this inventory. Ortho-P, NO3, NO2, and NH3 are the forms
usually absorbed by plants and therefore most directly involved in the stimula-
tion of plant growth.
Salinity and Common Ions
This grouping consists of a large number of water quality parameters. In
many instances, salinity (total dissolved solids) is considered to be the main
factor in assessing or describing a water quality. However, many of the common
ions that comprise the TDS concentration of a water can individually detract
from a water use when in extremely high concentrations. The common consti-
tuents listed for this parameter group include primarily the anions and cations
described in table 1 and silica.
The salinity of a water can be measured or estimated in several ways — in-
directly, via the specific conductance of a sample or as the sum of individual
constituents (predominantly the common ions) after chemical analyses, or di-
rectly, by weighing the filterable residue of an aliquot of water sample
after evaporation at 180°C. High levels of salinity and of certain common ions
in a pond, lake, or stream are commonly derived from natural sources, but this
problem can be intensified by inputs of TDS from nonpoint sources (e.g., from
saline seep areas aggravated by poor agricultural practices or from irrigation
return flows) and, in some cases, by unique point-source discharges.
Other parameters placed in this group are hardness and alkalinity, which
can also detract from water use and its quality, although adequate levels of
alkalinity are important in acting as a buffer to acid inputs to a stream.
The sodium adsoption ratio (SAR) is also included in this group because it is
a summary variable describing the Na: Ca-Mg relationships of a water relative
to irrigational use. In addition, pH is considered to belong to this group.
Excluding silica, considerable amounts of data are available for most of
these parameters.
Toxic and Harmful Substances and Health Hazards
Numerous constituents potentially present in the water can act as toxic,
harmful substances (affecting the biota) or as health hazards (affecting man).
This includes some of the parameters described previously in other groupings,
although a set of parameters not yet discussed is generally placed into this
category—the metals, pesticides and herbicides, radiochemical parameters,
phenols, oil and grease, the coliforms (total, fecal, and strep), and the
polychlorinated biphenyls. Most of these constituents are pollution-causing,
many are abiotic, and most do not usually arise in high concentrations from
natural sources.
10
Only sparse data are available for most of these parameters. As a re-
sult, this inventory was directed primarily to certain of the metals and to
the fecal coliforms. This latter feature is an indirect indicator of a po-
tential health hazard when measured at high levels in a sample. The other
parameters that fit into this group are briefly considered for those streams
on which such data are available. Even for some of the metals, only sporadic
analyses were made.
WATER QUALITY INDEX
Because the water quality information available for a region under con-
sideration was collected by a variety of agencies and is often variable in
time, location, and scope, comparison and interpretation of this information
is often difficult. The National Sanitation Foundation has attempted to de-
velop a water quality index (WQI) which would: "(1) Make available a tool for
dependably treating water quality data and presenting them as a single numeri-
cal index, and (2) promote utilization of a process for effectively communica-
ting water quality conditions to all concerned" (McClelland 1974).
The WQI has been defined as a "single numerical expression which reflects
the composite influence of nine significant physical, chemical, and micro-
biological parameters of water quality" (McClelland 1974). Nine variables are
included in the WQI: DO as percentage of saturation, fecal coliform density,
pH, B0D5, nitrates (NO3-N), phosphates (PO4-P), temperature departure from
equilibrium, turbidity, and total solids. These parameters basically reflect
polluted conditions when they deviate from a qualitative, prescribed norm.
The WQI is derived from a multiplicative model in which the nine parameters
are weighted (as ordered above) with respect to their overall importance to
water quality. The resulting WQI ranges from zero to 100 with the higher val-
ues indicative of a better water quality relative to these variables. A value
of 100 for a sample would reflect a case where none of the parameters had de-
viated from the norm.
One disadvantage of this WQI lies in the necessity of knowing all nine
values and in the possibility of missing data. According to Inhaber (1975),
"Almost no environmental information is now (or has been) collected with an
index in mind, and so the data tend to be highly non-uniform and difficult to
amalgamate." As a result, certain of the nine parameters may be missing from
the analysis, in which case the WQI would be incalculable. In addition, the
WQI, developed in part by McClelland (1974), may not represent the best index
for regions with particular problems; a different weighting, exclusion of some
of the nine parameters, or the inclusion of other variables could afford a more
appropriate WQI for some areas. In any event, WQI's have been calculated for
those streams in the Yellowstone drainage sampled by the state WQB for all of
the critical parameters. Determinations of these nine variables have been
stressed in the analysis of recent samples obtained by the state WQB.
More complete considerations of the rationale, procedures, calculations,
historical background, and applications of the WQI are available from Brown
et al. (1970), Brown et al . (1973), McClelland (1974), and Brown and McClelland
(1974).
11
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
Three segments of the Yellowstone River can be delineated in Montana, de-
fined on the basis of the type of drainage associated with each. The upper,
southwestern reach comprising about 168 miles (270 km) above Laurel, Montana,
has tributaries that drain primarily mountainous areas; several of these
streams are relatively large, and many of the streams in this drainage seg-
ment have continuous, natural flows. Most of the smaller tributaries also
have mountainous origins.
In contrast, although the larger streams in the 253-mile (407-km) middle
segment (Laurel to Terry, Montana) also have their headwaters in mountainous
areas, they also have an extensive prairie drainage. The larger streams in
the middle segment typically have a continuous flow, but many of the smaller
tributaries are ephemeral or intermittent in nature and have a plains rather
than a mountainous origin. Poorer qualities of water are typically associated
with streams that have extensive prairie watersheds than those with mountain-
ous drainage systems.
Low volumes of tributary flow characterize the 129-mile (208-km) segment
of the river between Terry and Fairview, Montana. Tributaries are typically
small and often intermittent streams of prairie origin. This lower, north-
eastern segment, along with the upper and middle segments and associated drain-
ages, roughly correspond to the three water quality management planning areas
defined by the state WQB for the Yellowstone River drainage. The water quality
in these three segments of the mainstem and the changes in quality through the
reaches are in part a reflection of the types and magnitudes of surface water
contributions to the mainstem from the drainages associated with the segments.
DRAINAGE BASINS EXAMINED AND ASSOCIATED STREAMS
The study area has been divided into a primary and secondary area, each
of which is subdivided into several subregions (figure 1). Subregions are
natural hydrological basins and generally correspond to combinations of two
or three minor drainage basins delineated by the Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation (Montana Water Resources Board, no date).
The secondary, less extensive survey area extends from the Yellowstone
National Park border to the mouth of the CI arks Fork Yellowstone River and
consists of two minor drainage basins (43B and 43QJ). The associated drainage
basins of the major tributaries to the mainstem in this upper segment--
the Shields (43A), Boulder (43BJ), Stillwater (43C), and Clarks Fork (43D)
rivers, and Sweetgrass Creek (43BV) drainages — were not considered in this inven-
tory; tabular summaries and discussions of the chemistry and quality of water
in these minor basins are available in a water quality management planning
report prepared by Karp et al . (1976). Water quality information for the sec-
ondary study area of this inventory is available from several sequential sam-
pling locations along the river. One of the sites, at Corwin Springs, about
6.5 miles (10.5 km) below Gardiner, is the most westerly location, while the
one at Laurel, Montana, is located near the eastern border of this secondary
area.
12
YeIIovx/stone River Basin
Primary Argd SeconcJary Siudy Areas
AN<J AsSOCIATEd SubREqiONS
FAIRVIEW 01
SIDNEY
IRICHLAND / \
I,
I McCONE
LT"U"
DAWSON
42 M
'—J | O
H
1 Js
GAR FIELD
0 10 20
\"
L.
0
PRAIRIEI ^ /J / J I O
T'wib a/ux H
FALLON I / 1 r
GLENDIVEjJ
J
0 10 20 40 60 80 100 Kilometers
IHH^H I 1 I 1
\
^ ^3*. I
42 K a
1
42 KJ
\ MEAGHER
WH EATLAND
.J
: go
| MUSSELSHELL J. J
\ /^>v S T R E A S/ii^LL Yellowstone
LDEN \ -^^ ' \ > myers j^,7~Za>~~s~-^' 5k^~
j 1 FALLON
I h 42 1_
VALLEY
43 A
S W E
GRASi )?43l
, BIG ltyWW5/
— 43 Q
ELLO WSTON E
GALLATIN
'LIVINGSTJ
p;a r k
43£
.STILLWATEf
.43 QJ
HUNTLEY^
.LINGS //T\ ■/
"1 \ f
|42
A
COLSTRlJ
1
L.
42 J
/ I
/i
43 B
,C0RWIN SPRINGS"
V. V_r^\^GAROINER A
Y ELLOW STONE
NATIONAL PARK
143 C
"^ f C A RBON
^3 x/SfcER
B I G[ H 0)R N
ESERWlON[!
i*M#iWdeer\| p0W[/eR RUVER
lAN/hol^JOlRTHCRN Wi P O W Utt n
^ E|YEl2>E ^TfHLAND ^OADUS
M)>rrREs\v'
CARTER
H
42
Jyeilowtail y ("• 1—^42 r
A3 D *> i l/\43 I J Reservoir y Jd9 / i Ea (Tongue River
N I / X ./ O / I tReservoir
\ \? \ / ^/ /"^ Y #/DECKER
n —
i »
°
I c
w
d
>
WYOMING
FiquRE 1
YeIIovx/stone River Basin
Primary AIN|d SeconcJary Siudy Areas
ANd AsSOCIATEd SubREqiONS
RESE
Th
fined c
southwe
has tri
streams
ment ha
have mc
In
segment
areas,
the mic
tribute
than a
with st
ous (in
Lc
of the
small c
easterr
ages, »
definec
in the:
reache;
contril
DRAINAI
Tl
of whii
natura
or thn
Resour
T
Nation
consis
basins
the S
rivers
tory;
in the
report
ondary
pling
6.5 mi
one at
area.
Six major subregions were defined for the primary inventory portion of
the Yellowstone drainage; these subregions were further subdivided. Three of
the subregions in the primary study area had segments of the Yellowstone main-
stem as the major stream whereas the other three subregions consisted of the
drainage area associated with a major tributary to the Yellowstone:
1) Yellowstone mainstem between the mouths of the CI arks Fork
Yellowstone and Bighorn rivers;
2) Yellowstone mainstem between the mouths of the Bighorn and
Powder rivers;
3) Yellowstone mainstem from the mouth of the Powder River to
the state line;
4) Bighorn River;
5) Tongue River; and
6) Powder River.
Mainstem Subregions
The most western subregion of the primary inventory area that includes a
segment of the mainstem consists of the Yellowstone River and tributaries be-
tween the confluences of the Clarks Fork Yellowstone (at Laurel) and Bighorn
rivers (at Bighorn) (basin 43Q). The major tributary of the Yellowstone in
this segment is Pryor Creek (43E) which originates in the Pryor Mountains
and flows northward to join the mainstem at Huntley, Montana. Relatively
complete chemical data (i.e., various common ions such as Ca and SO*, critical
nutrients such as NO3+NO2-N and PO^-P, several metals such as Fe ana Zn, cal-
culated information such as sodium adsorption ratio and total dissolved solids,
and field parameters--e.g. , specific conductance, dissolved oxygen coliforms,
and temperature) are available for this creek and a few small tributary streams
(e.g., Hay Creek) and for several locations on the mainstem through this seg-
ment, including Laurel to the west and Custer to the east. In addition, com-
plete chemistry data is available for several of the smaller streams in this
region--Arrow and Fly creeks east of Huntley and Canyon and Duck creeks west.
Of these four and Pryor Creek, only Canyon Creek drains an area north of the
Yellowstone River. Partial chemical data (analysis of a few specific para-
meters such as suspended sediment, conductivity, and critical nutrients) are
available for several mainstem locations and for numerous small creeks west
of Huntley (Fivemile, Alkali, and Blue creeks in addition to Canyon and Duck
creeks). These more specific water quality data were collected in conjunction
with a waste-load allocation investigation of the Yellowstone River in the
vicinity of Billings being completed by the state WQB (Karp et al . 1976b,
Klarich 1976).
The second mainstem subregion extends from the confluence of the Bighorn
River to the confluence of the Powder River near Terry, Montana. This middle
region consists of two unequal minor basins--42KJ to the west and a small
basin to the east (42K), which consists primarily of the Sunday Creek drainage
15
north of the river near Miles City. The drainage areas of the two major tri-
butaries that delimit this middle area (the Bighorn and Powder rivers) plus
that of the Tongue River located between these two streams were considered
separate subregions. As a result, Rosebud Creek is the major tributary with-
in this middle subregion (basin 42A). The creek has its headwaters in the
Rosebud Mountains in southeastern Montana and flows in a north to north-
easterly direction from its origin, joining the Yellowstone River near For-
syth, Montana. Rosebud Creek is close to the town of Colstrip, the site of
extensive coal-fired, electrical generation development. Considerable water
quality data has been gathered for several locations on this stream through
sampling programs for environmental impact statement (EIS) purposes (Montana
DNRC 1974). This was also the case for two minor Yellowstone tributaries in
the drainage--Sarpy and Armells creeks south of the mainstem between Hysham
and Forsyth. In addition to Sunday Creek, complete chemical data are avail-
able for other mainstem tributaries in this middle subregion (Froze-to-Death,
Great, and Little Porcupine creeks north of the river, and Reservation, Sweeney,
and Moon creeks south and for several of the Rosebud Creek tributaries (Davis,
Lame Deer, and Muddy creeks near Busby and Lame Deer on the Northern Cheyenne
Indian Reservation). Many of these are small, and some are intermittent. Data
for the mainstem in this subregion are available for several locations, in-
cluding Myers (to the west), Miles City, and Terry (near the eastern boundary).
Tributaries to the mainstem in the eastern or lower segment of the Yellow-
stone River (a relatively expansive minor basin (42M) that extends from the
mouth of the Powder River to the Montana-North Dakota border) are typically
small with generally low volumes of flow; many of these streams are intermit-
tent. Some complete water quality data are available for a few of these small
streams including Cabin, Cedar, and Glendive creeks south of the mainstem be-
tween Fallon and Glendive and Fox Creek north of the river near Sidney. The
Yellowstone River has been sampled at several locations in this lower sub-
region, including sites (in downstream order from the southwest to the north-
east) at Terry-Fallon, Glendive, Intake, and Sidney, plus a site in North Dakota
between Cartwright and Fairview, Montana (Highway 200 bridge). One of the major
tributaries to the Yellowstone in this subregion is 0' Fallon Creek (basin 42L).
Complete chemical data are available for this stream and for two of its tribu-
taries—Sandstone and Pennel creeks near Ismay, Montana.
Tributary Subregions
Three major tributaries join the Yellowstone River in the primary inven-
tory area--the Bighorn, Tongue, and Powder rivers. All of these streams enter
the mainstem from the south and have their origins in the mountainous regions
of Wyoming (the Bighorn and Owl Creek mountains and the Rattlesnake Range).
The drainage areas of these large tributaries were considered separate sub-
regions due to the large amount of water quality data available for these basins.
Complete chemical information is generally available for several well -spaced lo-
cations on the main river in each of these subregions and for several locations
on its major tributaries. Similar to the sampling sites on the mainstem, the
sampling locations on these major streams were dispersed along the length of the
river in Montana. In addition, chemical data are available from at least one
location on many of the smaller creeks in each of these subregions.
16
The three tributary subregions and associated major rivers are the Big-
horn-Little Bighorn rivers drainage (43P and 430) located in the southwestern
portion of the primary study area, the Powder-Little Powder rivers drainage
(42J and 421) covering the southeastern sector, and, contiguous in the extreme
southern segment of Montana to both of these drainages, the intermediately lo-
cated Tongue River drainage (42B and 42C). The Clarks Fork-Pryor Creek-Fly
Creek drainages lie to the west of the Bighorn system, and the 0' Fallon Creek-
Little Missouri systems lie to the east of the Powder-Little Powder rivers
drainage.
The upstream portion of the Bighorn River in Montana is inundated by
Yellowtail Reservoir (Bighorn Lake). One set of chemical data is available
for several streams (e.g., Black Canyon and Dry Head creeks) that drain par-
tially unsurveyed terrain around Yellowtail Reservoir in Montana and Wyominq
and then empty into the reservoir. Water quality data also are available for
the Bighorn and Little Bighorn rivers and for several of the smaller streams
in their drainage, including Pass, Owl, Lodge Grass, and Reno creeks, which
are tributaries of the Little Bighorn River, and Soap, Rotten Grass, Beauvais,
and Tullock creeks, tributaries of the Bighorn. Additional data are available
for a few miscellaneous creeks in this drainage (e.g., Sioux Pass Creek). In
addition, some data have been collected for Sage Creek (basin 42N) near Warren,
which originates in the Pryor Mountains of Montana but has the bulk of its
drainage in Wyoming where it joins the Bighorn River. Many of the streams in
the Bighorn-Little Bighorn system are located totally or in part on the Crow
Indian Reservation.
Major tributaries in the Tongue River and Powder River systems are Hanging
Woman, Otter, and Pumpkin creeks in the former, and Mizpah Creek and the Little
Powder River in the latter; a considerable amount of complete chemical data are
available for these particular streams. In addition, many small, generally
intermittent streams have been sampled during the past year in the Decker-
Birney-Ashland area of the Tongue River drainage by the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM) under contract to the USGS for an EIS related to the leasing of
federal land for coal mining in this region. Examples of such streams include
Fourmile, Bull, and Cook creeks near Birney; Threemile, Beaver, and Liscom
creeks near Ashland, and Bear Creek at Otter, Montana (USDI 1976). Other small
streams in the Tongue River drainage for which some chemical data are avail-
able include Young, Squirrel, and Deer creeks near Decker and Little Pumpkin
Creek near Volborg. Complete water quality information for the Powder-Little
Powder River subregion was collected primarily from these two rivers and from
Mizpah Creek. Single sets of data are available for two minor streams in this
drainage--Sand Creek near Volborg and Sheep Creek near Locate.
The three segments described on page 12 were not defined strictly on the
basis of hydrological basins as were primary and secondary survey areas and
their respective subregions. However, the upper segment of the Yellowstone
above Laurel generally corresponds to the subregion defined as the mainstem
above the confluence of the Clarks Fork River. The next two downstream sub-
regions in the primary study area--the mainstem from the Clarks Fork Yellow-
stone to the Bighorn and from the Bighorn to the Powder—closely relate to the
middle segment of the river (extending from Laurel to Terry). The lower seg-
ment of the Yellowstone below Terry closely corresponds to the final downstream
subregion from the Powder River confluence to the Montana-North Dakota border.
17
Theoretically, the adjustments should be made to Qj and LTDSj (figure 2)
before initiating the process detailed in table 20 so that increased salt
concentrations would be considered in the water diverted for, and returned
from, irrigation. Computational problems would have increased by at least
a factor of 30, however, and that consideration, plus time and logistic
factors, made that course of action prohibitive. Adjustments to the salt
loads were small in most cases, and only a fraction of Qj, the total flow,
was diverted in a given month. Consequently, any errors introduced by
adjusting salt loads after, instead of before, simulating water quality
were judged to be minor.
Methodology for Other Parameters
Most conservative parameters can be estimates from total dissolved solids
through the use of linear regression equations. Therefore, common ions and
hardness were related to TDS by simple linear regression equations developed
from data published by the USGS (1966-1974). Two to four years of data were
used for each station. Generally, excellent results were obtained (regres-
sion coefficients greater than 0.9). Consequently, once future TDS concen-
trations were calculated by methods described previously, concentrations of
individual ions were computed from regression equations. Determination of
hardness, also a linear function of TDS, was obtained in the same manner.
Sodium, sulfate, chloride, and bicarbonate ions were examined for each basin
and, along with hardness, are discussed under "Other Parameters" for each
subbasin where changes in concentration are significant.
Sodium adsorption ratio is a nonlinear function of the concentrations
of sodium, calcium, and magnesium ions. SAR was estimated by two methods:
(1) SAR as a linear function of TDS, and (2) SAR as a function of sodium,
calcium, and magnesium ion concentrations, which were obtained from regres-
sion equations applied to simulated TDS values. Results of the two meth-
ods generally were similar.
No attempt was made to simulate nonconservative parameters such as dis-
solved oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients, and water temperature.
Regression equations were obtained for average monthly water temperature as
a function of average monthly air temperature and monthly discharge for the
Yellowstone River near Sidney during July and August. Results, although not
always statistically significant, were used as a guide in estimating the
effect of decreased streamflows on water temperature. Generally, however,
estimates of the effects of the levels of development on nonconservative
parameters, including sediment, were only qualitative and based on the
judgement of the authors.
18
WvdiMU
Two levels of water quality inventory and survey were conducted for this
study. Because the major water use impacts from water withdrawal and develop-
ment were expected to occur in the middle and lower portions of the Yellowstone
drainage in association with the Fort Union coal formation, an intensive survey
was designed for the Yellowstone River system below the mouth of the Clarks Fork
Yellowstone River, which corresponds to the middle and lower segments described
above. In this case, the inventory was directed not only to the Yellowstone
mainstem but also to all significant surface waters in the drainage, including
major tributaries such as the Little Bighorn, Bighorn, Tongue, and Powder
rivers, the significant streams in their drainages (e.g., Tullock, Otter, and
Hanging Woman creeks and the Little Powder River), and small but significant
tributaries of the Yellowstone River, e.g., Sarpy, Armells, and Rosebud creeks.
For comparative purposes and to describe the quality of water entering the in-
tensive survey region, a second, less intensive level of inventory was planned
for the Yellowstone drainage above the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River--the upper
segment described previously. In this case, none of the numerous major or minor
streams in the drainage (e.g., the Shields, Boulder, Stillwater, and Clarks Fork
Yellowstone rivers, and Tom Miner, Bill, Big Timber, Sweetgrass, and Deer creeks)
were considered to any great detail; only the water quality status of the upper
Yellowstone River mainstem was surveyed.
Eighty percent of the additional agricultural development and all of the
future energy development is projected to occur in eastern Montana (see appendix
A). Consequently, only that portion of the basin east of Billings was analyzed
for changes in water quality. To facilitate the analysis, the watershed was di-
vided into six subbasins along hydrological boundaries. Each subbasin, and the
station used to gage outflow at the subbasin's lower boundary, is listed below:
1) upper Yellowstone—Yellowstone River at Billings;
2) Bighorn—Bighorn River at Bighorn;
3) mid-Yellowstone--Yellowstone River near Miles City;
4) Tongue—Tongue River at Miles City;
5) Powder— Powder River near Locate; and
6) lower Yellowstone— Yellowstone River near Sidney.
DATA SOURCES AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
One major source of water quality information used in this inventory was
the USGS. The USGS is primarily a contractual agency that maintains several
water quality monitoring stations on various streams throughout the inventory
area and the state as funded by interested groups (e.g., the Montana Department
of Fish and Game, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States
Bureau of Reclamation) (USDI 1976). The chemical, physical, and biological
data obtained from their sampling programs are summarized by water year in
19
Water Resources Data for Montana, Part 2--Water Quality Records. Because the
period since September 1965 was defined as "current" for this inventory, only
data obtained since then were used for this review with a few exceptions
(USDI 1966-1 974b) . Water quality information obtained during water year 1975
and the first part of 1976 had not yet been published at the time of this
writing.
The water quality sampling program of the US6S prior to 1966 was directed
to only a few streams and locations in the Yellowstone River Basin of Montana.
In addition, neither the amounts (sampling frequency, historic record) nor the
parametric spectrum of the chemical data were particularly extensive during
this pre-1966 period. A large part of this pre-1966 data was obtained during
an extensive suspended sediment-temperature investigation of Bluewater Creek
(to collect baseline data for determining the feasibility of placing a fish
hatchery on the stream) and from four irrigation network stations—the Yellow-
stone River at Billings and Sidney, the Bighorn River at Bighorn, and the Tongue
River at Miles City. In the former case, daily temperature and suspended sedi-
ment information, but no related chemical data, were collected for several
years. However, Bluewater Creek is not considered a part of the secondary
area for this inventory since it is a tributary of the CI arks Fork River.
Temperature data and some chemical information, primarily for those parameters
that more directly influence the irrigative use of water, were obtained from
the irrigation network stations.
Since about 1968-1969, water quality sampling programs in the Yellowstone
Basin have increased in the number of stations, spectrum of parameters, and
frequency of collections (table 2). The irrigation network stations, now more
comprehensive in the range of data gathered, have been continued. The USGS
National Stream Quality Accounting Network and the International Hydrological
Decade Station programs have added a few water-quality stations to the region,
as has the establishment of hydrologic benchmark stations in the drainages of
Montana. The development of radiochemical, pesticide, and suspended sediment
stations has also further increased the water quality data base for the region
in recent years.
As an example of this increased emphasis on water quality sampling since
1968, in water year 1966, only eleven water quality sites, including two on
the Yellowstone River, three on Bluewater Creek (only temperature and sediment
data), and two on the Bighorn River where only temperature data were obtained,
were sampled in the Yellowstone River Basin of Montana. At the USGS station in
Billings, about 18 parameters were directly analyzed, including discharge and
chemical analyses (common ions plus NO3, boron, dissolved solids, specific con-
ductance, and pH). In contrast, 10 sites were sampled on the Yellowstone River
in 1974, and 26 within the Yellowstone Basin of Montana during this time. In
water year 1971, 54 rather than 18 parameters were analyzed in samples taken at
Billings, including a number of pesticides, radiochemical parameters, some
metals, and some suspended sediment measurements in addition to the analyses
listed previously.
Table 3 summarizes the streams and associated locations for which water
quality data between October, 1965 and September, 1974 are available from USGS
publications (USDI 1966-1 974b) . Specific parameters analyzed at these sites
are considered on pages 83 to 305 in this report. Table 4 presents a list
20
o
*t
c
o-i
l/l
<n
4-
m
ai
D
4-
F
dJ
aj
>
+j
i
rr
n>
</)
(U
c
Tl
n
C
+j
ffl
oo
?
Ifl
o
1 l
i —
Ol
cm o
o
CM O
CM O
o
^r co cm
«g-
to r^
e'-
to r~-
to r-.
r-.
ininrN
LO
r^
4->
~-^\
W
\ ,~^ "^^
\
CTi
01
CT| ai
en
en en
CTl CTl
CTl
CTi CTl to
CTi
O CO
o
O CO
O CO
o
i
i
to LO CTl
to
1
J_
LO to
to
to to
to to
to
<J LDLO
"3-
r^
1 1
*»«.
^
o
0J
ro CD
>=!-
CO o
CO O
>a-
jo o o
to
to
"~
1
r~ "~
JD.
■o
aj
tj
4-
4-
o
to o
o
o
<* o
co <=c
>*
CO
■— CO «3"
«3-
ro p».
*a-
O
3
p^
to r-~
r-~
r-~
to r-
LO r~.
r~~
r-
ininrs
r^
LO LO
r^v
U
4->
\ --^
-->
•^^ ^^.
ai
id
01
cn ai
CTl
CT>
en ai
CTi CTi
l
CTi
cn
CTi i— CTi
cr.
CTi CTi
CTi
cc
4-
1
i i
1 1
1
1 i — 1
aj
to
O r~-
CO
CO
r— lO
O CO
CM
CM
CTi 1 CTi
CTi
■ — LO
4-
Ot
to
to to
to
to
to to
LO lO
to
to
>3- CM LO
>s-
LO LO
LO
o
£
-^
-v.
\^.
~~.^
\ LO -^
QJ
en o
o
O
CO t—
CM I--
CM
CM
^3" ^. tO
<*
CM O
CO
1—
CO
4-
ro
0)
C0 «*
CM "3"
f
i— CO
r- >*
cn «a-
co r^ cm *r
*3-
>-
,—
lo p**
to r^
to r-^
«3- r^
inLDNi —
c-
15
CTl CTi
CTl CTi
CTi
CTi CTi
CO CTi
CTi CTi
CTi CTi r^. CTi
CTi
■•-
1
i
i
1
1
O CO
O CM
to
r— CTl
lo co en
CO r—
r— LO cn ^r
co
E
1
1
LO tO
LO r^
to
LO to
<d- >* <^-
«3- LO
irnniois
*3-
cu
^»"^.
JZ
O r—
CD r^
O
i— CO CO
CTi i—
CvlOrsi?
CTi
CD
CO
<:
Q
<_>
ca
=c
ca
<
=c
CD
<_>
<c
CD
Q
o
<c
t_)
<c
C3
<z
Q
co
LO
CTl
to
r~
■*
to
>*
CO
CO
CO
CTi
O
r_
O
o
CM
CM
CO
CM
1—
CM
CO
CM
o
O
LU
UJ
UJ
LU
LU
LU
LU
LU
LU
LU
LU
UJ
LU
«3"
*d-
<*
CO
CO
to
r-^
CO
>*
r^
CO
tn
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
CO
■a-
*d-
LO
to
to
to
to
to
z
—
to
to
^
^
to
-^.
o
to
to
to
LO
uo
CM
to
LO
r^.
CTl
CM
_J
o
O
O
O
o
o
O
o
O
o
o
O
CM
4-
cu
cn
-a
s_
CO
JZ
4-
a>
ro
ai
LO
4-
c
4-
CU
VC
4-
CD
cn
cn
a;
a>
01
jj^
cn
■a
JD
4-
>
>,
0J
T3
4-
cu
•!->
ro
c
-l->
c
<D
O
O
JO
c
X
c
TJ
"O
4.
4-
<+-
4-
E
3
T3
4.
<_)
ro
CD
CO
c
ro
Li_
o
4.
CO
31
+->
4-
ro
o
J=
L0
0J
JZ
to
4-
4-
to
4.
LL.
+J
4J
to
Ol
01
4.
4-1
0)
ra
fO
ro
ro
O
o>
-<->
ai
+J
4.
4.
co
o
ro
c
ro
c
(O
4-
4-
ro
(O
s:
s_
c
2
0)
CU
ai
OJ
•»->
01
o
CO
.^
-2^
>
>
c
c
ro
j->
+->
>
3
ai
(1) s_
<D
01
ro
ro
+->
o>
oj ai
CO
CD
ce.
ac
4.
4.
s-
cc
It
ca
4.
4- cn
4.
01
CU
01
i~
4-
c
CD
<_> -a
CD
CD
<v
01
>
>
>
01
QJ
01
c
o
■1-1
to
2
o
OJ
>-
U'
-^
c
c
>
>
4.
4-
4. 4-
4-
4-
o
o
ac
a-.
ca
U1
o
0>
O) CO
01
CL)
+J
ac
C£
UJ
LL.
+->
+->
*->
LO
L0
c
e
c
a
rO
r0 4.
ro
2
4.
4.
s_
01
4-
jz
2
2 ro
3
o
o
O
o
o
3
01
01
4.
O
0J
13
3 IZ
ai
3
01
3
CD
ai
jr
tn
JZ
CTi
tn
cn
c
o
2
o
to
Z
CO
CO
co
ca
>-
>-
ca
ca
ca
1—
o_
21
TABLE 3. Water quality monitoring stations in operation between October 1965
and September 1974 with published records maintained by the USGS on the Yellow-
stone River and in the Yellowstone River Basin of Montana below this confluence.
Site Designation
Location
Period of Record
between 9/65 and 9/74
Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs
Yellowstone River near Livingston
Yellowstone River at Laurel0 ,
Yellowstone River near Laurel
Yellowstone River at Billings
Yellowstone River at Huntley
Fly Creek at Pompeys Pillar
Yellowstone River at Custer
Bighorn River near St. Xavier
Beauvais Creek near St. Xavier
Bighorn River near Hardin
Little Bighorn River below Pass
Creek, near Wyola
Little Bighorn River near Hardin
Bighorn River at Bighorn
Yellowstone River at Myers
Yellowstone River at Forsyth
Yellowstone River near Miles City
Tongue River at state line,
near Decker
Tongue River below Hanging Woman
Creek, near Birney
Tongue River below Brandenburg
Bridge, near Ashland
Tongue River at Miles City
Yellowstone River near Shirley
Powder River below Fence Creek,
near Moorhead in Wyoming
Powder River at Moorhead
Little Powder River near Wyoming-
Montana state line in Wyoming
Yellowstone River near Terry
Lower Yellowstone Project Main
Canal at Intake
Lower Yellowstone Project Main
Canal Drain near Cartwright, N.D.
Sears Creek near Crain
Yellowstone River near Sidney
OSS 08E
30BD
7/69-12/73u
10/69-9/74°
03S 09E
12BBA
02S 24E
15CCC
2/74-9/74°
7/69-6/72°.
02S 25E
04A
01N 26E
34AA
10/65-9/74°
02N 27E
24C
7/72-9/74°
03N 30E
23DB
10/68-9/74°
7/69-6/70°
05N 33E
35AD
06S 31 E
16AB
10/65-9/74e
04S 30E
15
9/67-10/74°
01S 33E
24DA
10/65-9/73b'e'f
07S 35E
35C
10/69-9/74°
01S 34E
19AA
10/69-9/74°
05N 34E
33AA
10/65-9/74°
06N 35E
21DCC
4/74_9/74c
06N 40E
22AAD
4/74-9/74°
08N 47E
31CD
10/68-9/74°
09S 40E
33AB
10/65-9/74°
06S 42E
01DDC
4/74-9/74°
01 N 45E
06BCA
4/74-9/74°
07N 47E
23D
10/65-9/74°
5/70-9/70°;eo
6/74-10/74°'e
ION 49E
32
58N 75W
31CBC
09S 48E
08B
7/69-7/72, 4/74-9/74'
58N 71 W
36BA
10/69-5/70°
12N 51 E
10CD
4/74-9/74°
10/70-9/71°'e
18N 56E
25CDC
151N 104W
10/70-9/71b'e
21 N 58E
27CBC
10/70-9/71°'e
22N 59E
09CAC
10/65-9/74°
.Given in township-range-section and in quarter sections as available.
Station discontinued.
jAbove the confluence of the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River.
Below the confluence of the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River.
fTemperature records only are available for some years at these sites.
Continued as a continuous thermograph station in water year 1974.
22
TABLE 4. Water quality monitoring stations maintained by the USGS in the study
area for which information is being or has been obtained on several parameters.
Parameters
Site Designation
Temp
SC
TSS
Pest
RC
SG
Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs
c
Yellowstone River near Livingston
b,c
b,c
Yellowstone River near Laurel
c
Yellowstone River at Billings
b,c
b,c
d
c
b,c
Fly Creek at Pompeys Pillar
b,c
b,c
Yellowstone River at Custer
c
Bighorn River near St. Xavier
b,c
b,c
c
Beauvais Creek near St. Xavier
b,c
c
c
Bighorn River near Hardin
c
Little Bighorn River below Pass Creek,
c
c
c
near Wyola
Little Bighorn River near Hardin
b,c
b,c
b,c
Bighorn River at Bighorn
b,c
b,c
c,d
Sarpy Creek near Hysham
b
b
Armells Creek near Forsyth
b
b
Rosebud Creek at mouth, near Rosebud
b
b
Yellowstone River near Miles City
b,c
b,c
d
Tongue River at state line, near
b,c
b,c
e
Decker
Otter Creek at Ashland
b
b
Tongue River below Brandenburg Bridge,
b
b
b,e
b
b
near Ashland
Pumpkin Creek near Miles City
b
b
Tongue River at Miles City
b,c
b,c
d
Powder River at Moorhead
b
b
c
b
b
Powder River at Broadus
b
b
Mizpah Creek near Mizpah
b
b
Powder River near Locate
b
b
b
d
Yellowstone River near Sidney
b,c
b,c
b,c
b,c
f^lOTE: Temperature-only stations are not included on this list.
a Information is being or has been obtained for the following parameters:
temperature (Temp), daily specific conductance (SC), daily total suspended sedi-
ment (TSS), pesticide (Pest) levels, radiochemical (RC) analyses, and spectro-
graph^ (SG) analyses.
Data obtained during 1976.
cData available for some periods during 10/65-9/74.
Recent periphyton-phytoplankton sampling station.
eRecent continuous turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and pH monitoring site.
23
of sites for which once-daily or continuous temperature, specific conductance,
or suspended sediment data are available and where pesticide, radiochemical, or
spectrographs data are being or have been collected by the USGS. Biological
sampling programs have also increased in recent years; table 4 shows bacteriol-
ogical analyses at many locations in the basin and phytoplankton-pariphyton
assessments at sites on the Yellowstone and Tongue rivers. Algae collections
are being made on the Yellowstone River at "Vers and near Terry and on the
Tongue River below Hanging Woman Creek near Birney.
The trend towards greater data accumulation has accelerated during the
past two years because of concern about the potential dewatering and polluting
impacts of irrigation and coal development. Several additional water quality
stations have been recently put into operation by the USGS. The sampling of a
number of small creeks in the Decker-Birney-Ashland area is being funded by the
BLM. In addition, the EPA and the USGS are funding the operation of several
stations in the lower two-thirds of the Yellowstone River Basin. Table 5 lists
additional water quality monitoring sites maintained by the USGS in 1976 but for
which no published records are yet available (USDI 1976).
In addition to water quality monitoring stations, the USGS operates numer-
ous flow gaging stations in the Yellowstone River Basin (USDI 1966-1974a, USDI
1976). Many of these are coincident with the water quality sampling sites,
and many are located independently of water quality sites. Some of the water
quality sites do not have a corresponding continuous flow measuring capability;
instantaneous or estimated flows can be obtained at these locations. A number
of the gaging stations are located on the mainstem and major tributaries, and
several sites are also located on the smaller and minor streams in the region
(e.g., Tullock Creek near Bighorn, Sarpy Creek near Hysham, and Sunday Creek
near Miles City) .
Methods of chemical analysis utilized by the USGS are generally referenced
in their Water Quality Records publications (USDI 1 966-1 974b) . Examples would
include the following: Rainwater and Thatcher (I960), Guy (1969), Hem (1970),
Brown et al. (1970), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
water (1971), and Slack et al . (1973).
MONTANA WATER QUALITY BUREAU
Since about 1973, the Water Quality Bureau of the Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences has undertaken in the Yellowstone Basin
several water quality sampling programs designed to obtain comprehensive water
quality baseline data for several studies being completed by the Bureau. Some
of these efforts have been finished, and final reports, including tabular sum-
maries of water quality data collected by the state WQB (and the USGS) along
with general discussions of the status of water quality in the related drainage
basins, are now available.
Included among these reports are three water quality inventory and manage-
ment plans prepared by the Bureau for three large sections of the Yellowstone
Basin in Montana—the upper Yellowstone drainage (above Pryor Creek), the middle
Yellowstone River drainage (between Pryor Creek and the Tongue River), and the
24
TABLE 5. Additional USGS water quality monitoring sites in operation during
1976 which had no published records as of July 1976.
Site Designation
Location
Sarpy Creek near Hysham
East Fork Armells Creek near Col strip
West Fork Armells Creek near Forsyth
Armells Creek near Forsyth
Rosebud Creek near Colstrip
Greenleaf Creek near Colstrip
Rosebud Creek above Pony Creek
near Colstrip
Rosebud Creek near Rosebud
Rosebud Creek at mouth, near Rosebud
Squirrel Creek near Decker
Deer Creek near Decker
Tongue River at Tongue River Dam
near Decker
Fourmile Creek near Birney
Bull Creek near Birney
Hanging Woman Creek near Birney
Cook Creek near Birney
Bear Creek at Otter
Threemile Creek near Ashland
Otter Creek at Ashland
Beaver Creek near Ashland
Liscom Creek near Ashland
Foster Creek near Volborg
Pumpkin Creek near Sonnette
Pumpkin Creek near Loesch
Little Pumpkin Creek near Volborg
Pumpkin Creek near Volborg
Pumpkin Creek near Miles City
Powder River at Broadus
Mizpah Creek at Olive
Mizpah Creek near Volborg
Mizpah Creek near Mizpahb
Powder River near Locate
Burns Creek near Savage
06N
37E
30DD
03N
41E
28CCD
04N
40E
21BCC
06N
39E
26ABD
01S
42E
08ACD
01 N
43E
29BBB
02N
43E
29DDA
04N
42E
12CAC
06M
42E
21ABC
09S
39E
14BB
09S
41E
10CCB
08S
40E
13A
07S
41E
28ABA
06S
42E
28BCA
06S
43E
19DB
05S
42E
25BAC
07S
45E
02
04S
45E
03DDB
03S
44E
11DAA
01N
44E
34ADB
02N
45E
27BBD
03N
46E
12BDA
03S
48E
29DDA
01 S
49E
31B
01S
49E
06
01 N
49E
05
06N
48E
35CBD
05S
51E
03
03S
50E
26C
02N
51E
09C
06N
51E
24CAB
08N
51E
14C3
19N
57E
27DDA
locations given in township-range-section and in quarter
sections as available.
bSome historical water quality data are available on this
stream.
25
lower Yellowstone region (below the Tongue River). These plans were prepared
under the direction of the EPA (Karp and Botz 1975a, Karp et al. 1975b, Karp
et al . 1976a). In addition, data were collected by the state WQB in a large
section of the Yellowstone Basin (from parts of the middle and lower drainages)
in conjunction with the state's EIS concerning electrical generation develop-
ments at Colstrip, Montana (Montana DNRC 1974). The stateWQB has also re-
cently prepared a report dealing with the salinity-water quality aspects of the
saline seep phenomenon in Montana (Kaiser et al. 1975); several of the water
samples collected and analyzed for the purposes of this study were obtained
from the Yellowstone Basin. Appropriate data from all of these sampling pro-
grams were considered in their application to this particular inventory.
Some of the investigations recently undertaken by the statp WQB in the
Yellowstone Basin have not been completed at present; how_vt. , in most instan-
ces the field work has been largely terminated with the associated data now
available for review. In some cases, preliminary drafts of the study reports
have been completed, with final drafts anticipated in the coming year. Some
of the sampling programs initiated by the state WQB were designed primarily as
data-gathering efforts, with no reports expected. All of the information col-
lected from these sampling programs, now on file with the state WQ3, has been
reviewed for applicability to this inventory. These additional studies can be
summarized as follows:
1) As previously noted, a waste load allocation investigation of the
Yellowstone River between Laurel and Huntley, Montana is near com-
pletion. This study was funded by the EPA and both chemical and
biological aspects were considered, final drafts of two corresponding
reports are available (Karp et al. 1976b, Klarich 1976).
2) A limnological investigation of the Tongue River Reservoir in con-
junction with strip mining activity in the area is also near com-
pletion; a final report for the EPA should soon be available.
3) An extension of the saline seep sampling program described above was
funded by the Montana Department of State Lands for the collection
of additional biological and chemical data from afflicted areas.
4) The Yellowstone-Tongue Area-wide Planning Organization has funded the
chemical analyses of samples collected from the Tongue River in re-
lation to the closure of the Tongue River dam for repairs in the fall
of 1975.
5) The BLM, in cooperation with the USGS and the Montana Departments of
Fish and Game and Natural Resources and Conservation, has funded the
chemical analysis of a number of samples collected at eighteen sequen-
tial sites along the Yellowstone River from Corwin Springs to Sidney,
Montana ("water quality runs"). Several sets of such samples were
collected at different times of the year.
In addition, numerous supplemental water quality samples were collected from
the Yellowstone drainage through the past two years as a part of this study
funded by the Old West Regional Commission.
Most of the sampling programs initiated by the state WQB are best described
as geographically complete rather than historically. The intent of these pro-
grams was to supplement the data available from the USGS; as a result, sampling
was conducted at numerous sites in a study area but with collections at any par-
ticular site relatively few in number. Relative to the USGS data, the main dis-
advantage of the state WQB's data is the lack of extensive sample replication at
a site through time; the main advantage is that the state WQB's sampling efforts
have provided information on a variety of streams and locations for which no
previous data are available. In addition, many of the sampling programs com-
pleted by the state WQB on the larger streams of the basin utilized water quality
runs wherein several sequential sites were sampled on a stream within a short
period of time. Such runs provide some insight into the downstream changes in
a stream's water quality and can provide information on any selected phase of
the stream's hydrological cycle at any time of the year.
For these reasons, USGS and state WQB data appear to be generally complemen-
tary. The state WQB programs provide some data on current water quality status
of the smaller streams; the USGS programs provide in-depth water quality infor-
mation for a few locations on the major streams. Therefore, the USGS informa-
tion lends itself more readily to historical interpretation than the state WQB
data. However, the water quality runs of the state WQB are more helpful in
judging the longitudinal changes that occur in the water quality of major
streams for the particular time of year that the run was made.
Table 6 summarizes by basin the streams in the secondary and primary study
areas that have been sampled by the state WQB through these programs. The num-
ber of locations sampled on each of the streams and the number of samples col-
lected by the state WQB are also included in the table. Only those samples
that underwent a complete chemical analysis have been tabulated for this sum-
mary.
Field procedures and methods of chemical analyses of water samples col-
lected by the state WQB, summarized in a manual available through the state
WQB, were generally in accord with standard techniques (Jankowski and Botz
1974). Chemical analyses of most parameters were completed by the Chemistry
Laboratory Bureau of the Laboratory Division, Montana DHES; field parameters
were analyzed by state WQB personnel shortly after collection of each sample.
Methods of analysis are summarized in table 1.
Suspended solids were determined gravimetrically after filtering an appro-
priate aliquot of the sample through fiberglass filters and drying. Dissolved
solids were calculated as the sum of constituents. Sodium adsorption ratios
(SAR) were calculated from sodium, calcium, and magnesium mill iequivalency data
following an equation in Hem (1970). Metals were determined primarily as
"total recoverable" rather than dissolved because most analyses were completed
on unfiltered samples preserved with concentrated nitric acid (five milliliters
of acid per liter of sample (Jankowski and Botz 1974). Flow measurements were
made on many of the smaller streams in association with the collection of grab
samples. "Gurley" or pygmy current meters were used to measure the velocity
of discharge along with the appropriate depth and width measurements to assess
the areal component of flow (Carter and Davidian 1968, Jankowski and Botz 1974).
In some cases, the instantaneous discharge of a creek was estimated, but, when-
ever possible, flow measurements were obtained either from a USGS gaging station
on the stream or as indicated above.
27
TABLE 6. Streams sampled by the state WQB in the secondary and primary inven-
tory areas of the Yellowstone River Basin since the summer of 1973.
Stream and Basin
Locations
Sampled
Number of
Samples
Yellowstone River above confluence
Clarks Fork Yellowstone River
Mainstem (secondary area)
a,b,j
10
42
Yellowstone River drainage between
Clarks Fork and Bighorn rivers0
Mainstem3 'b'J'J
Spring Creek
4
27
1
1
Duck Creek
1
1
Canyon Creek
1
1
Pryor CreekJ
2
9
Hay Creek
1
2
East Fork Pryor Creek
1
2
East Fork Creek
1
1
Arrow Creek^
2
5
Fly Creek3 >J
1
3
Bighorn-Little Bighorn rivers drainage
Little Bighorn River3'1-1
4
9
Spring Creek
1
Pass Creek
2
East (Little) Owl Creek
1
Sioux Pass Creek
1
Owl Creek
2
3
Gray Blanket Creek
1
Lodge Grass Creek
4
Reno Creek f .
Bighorn River ' 'J
1
3
13
Sage Creek
2
2
Crooked Creek
2
Porcupine Creek9
1
Dry Head Creek9
1
Hoodoo Creek9
1
Big Bull Elk Creek9
1
Little Bull Elk Creek9
1
Black Canyon CreekS
1
Soap CreekJ
2
Rotten Grass Creek
2
5
Tullock Creek
2
15
28
TABLE 6. Continued
Stream and Basin
Locations
Sampled
Number of
Samples
Yellowstone River drainage between
Bighorn and Powder rivers
Mainstema'b!h'j
6
43
Sarpy CreekJ
2
9
Reservation Creek
1
3
East Fork Armells Creek.
3
9
West Fork Armells CreekJ
2
3
Armells CreekJ
2
9
Sheep Creek
1
Smith Creek •
2
Rosebud CreekJ
6
30
Indian Creek
1
Davis Creek
2
Muddy Creek
1
Lame Deer Creek
3
Sweeney Creek
2
Moon Creek
2
Alf Creek
1
Froze-to-Death Creek
1
Starve-to-Death Creek
2
Great Porcupine Creek
2
3
Little Porcupine Creek
3
Sunday Creek
9
Tongue River drainage
Powder River drainage
Mainstema'"l'J'
10
54
Youngs Creek
1
Squirrel Creek
1
Deer Creek
1
Stroud Creek
1
Canyon Creek
1
Cow Creek
1
Hanging Woman CreekJ
2
11
Logging Creek
1
Otter CreekJ .
3
11
Pumpkin Creek1-1
2
16
Little Pumpkin Creek
1
1
Ma ins tern 'J
Little Powder Riverc
Sheep Creek
Mizpah Creek
Sand Creek
26
12
1
12
1
29
TABLE 6. Continued
Stream and Basin
Locations
Sampled
Number of
Samples
Yellowstone River drainage below
confluence Powder River
Mainstem ' 'J ,
7
28
0' Fallon CreekJ,
3
14
Sandstone CreekJ
2
Pennel Creek
1
Cabin Creek
2
3
Cedar Creek
2
Sevenmile Creek
1
61 endive Creek
3
Fox Creek
3
Lonetree Creek
1
Second Hay Creek
1
Totals
149
512
aSome published water quality records between the years of 1965 and 1975
are available for these streams from the USGS.
bSeveral of the locations in these reaches were utilized for the Yellowstone
water quality runs; two additional sets of samples have been collected from these
sites on recent runs but not tabulated because the results of the chemical anal-
yses are not yet available.
cNumerous samples from the mainstem and certain tributaries have not been
tabulated for this region; these were collected for partial chemical analyses as
part of the waste load allocation investigation of the Yellowstone River between
Laurel and Huntley.
dThis creek joins the Clarks Fork River very near the river's mouth.
eSeveral other samples were collected from this stream but not tabulated;
these were obtained as part of an irrigation study dealing with specific para-
meters. Data are also available for irrigation return flows and canals.
fWater quality information is available from the USGS for the Beauvais
Creek tributary of the Bighorn River.
9These creeks are Bighorn tributaries in the vicinity of Yellowtail Reser-
voir (Bighorn Lake).
hSamples tabulated include those obtained from several Yellowstone River
backwater areas.
Samples tabulated include those collected for complete analyses during the
closure of the Tongue River Dam for repairs; however, the listing does not in-
clude those samples collected for partial analyses as a part of the Tongue River
Reservoir strip mining study.
JPartial chemical analyses are also available for these streams; these
samples were not included in the tabulations.
30
MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES AND OTHER INVESTIGATIONS
Water quality data from various streams in the Yellowstone River Basin
are also available from STORET (a national data storage and retrieval system).
Although this information was surveyed for this inventory, a major portion of
the data stored in this computer system was originally obtained by the USGS
and is therefore published in its annual Water Quality Records publications
(USDI 1966-1974b). The main value of STORET to this study was in the retriev-
al of more recent and currently unpublished water quality data collected by
the USGS (from October of 1974 to January of 1976).
Unpublished and provisional water quality data collected by the USGS in
the last two years was obtained directly from the USGS in conjunction with
monitoring activities of the state WQB (e.g., to supplement continued monitor-
ing on Armells and Rosebud creeks in the Col strip area). Data collected by
the USGS during the closure of the Tongue River Dam in the fall of 1975 was
also reviewed for this inventory.
In addition to the programs of the USGS and the state WQB, water-quality-
related studies and planning efforts have been or are being completed in the
Yellowstone River Basin by other state and federal agencies. These range from
broad, general studies covering large geographic areas to specific investiga-
tions typically concerned with particular streams, stream segments, lakes-
reservoirs, or with particular water quality problems. The Missouri River
Basin Comprehensive Framework Study (Missouri River Basin Inter-Agency Com-
mittee 1969), a Bureau of Reclamation resources report (USDI 1972), the inter-
agency Northern Great Plains Resources Program (NGPRP 1974), and the Decker-
Birney Resource Study of the Bureau of Land Management and the United States
Forest Service (USDI and USDA 1974b) all serve as examples of the more general
type of study. The earliest effort was directed at broadly describing water
and related resources in the upper Missouri River Basin of which the Yellow-
stone drainage is a part. The Bureau of Reclamation study was directed at more
specifically delineating the resources in the basins of eastern Montana, in-
cluding considerations of the basins' water resources and water quality attri-
butes. The Water Quality Subgroup of the NGPRP has attempted to provide al-
ternative methods for the development of water resources in the basins of
southeastern Montana; water quality aspects were considered in the study as
well as the effects of in-stream flow variations on aquatic life (Boree 1975,
USEPA 1974). The Decker-Birney Resource Study was initiated in conjunction
with the federal leasing of lands for coal and energy development. In addition,
the National Commission on Water Quality has become involved in the Yellowstone
drainage, and the Missouri River Basin Commission is preparing a Level B study
which will attempt to resolve conflicts between industrial and agricultural de-
velopment and in-stream flow requirements.
The recently established area-wide planning organizations (APOs) funded
through the EPA are also directing their efforts to water quality problems in
their respective regions (208 planning districts). Two such districts are lo-
cated in parts of the Yellowstone drainage--a Mid-Yellowstone APO headquartered
in Billings, and the Yellowstone-Tongue APO located in Broadus--with a state-
wide 208 covering the remainder of the basin.
A research group from Montana State University directed by Dr. J. C.
Wright has recently completed an extensive limnological investigation of
31
Yellowtail Reservoir (Soltero 1971, Soltero et al . 1973, Wright and Soltero
1973). The Cooperative Fishery Research Unit at Montana State is conducting
a limnological -fishery study of the Tongue River Reservoir in relation to
strip mining activities in the area (Whalen et al . 1976). Other important
studies of a more specific nature in the Yellowstone Basin include the work
of the Montana University Joint Water Resources Research Center and the ground
and surface water quality monitoring efforts of the Montana Bureau of Mines and
Geology in the Colstrip and Decker strip mine areas (Van Voast 1974, Van Voast
and Hedges 1976). The study of the Water Resources Research Center involved a
chemical and biological analysis of the upper Yellowstone River as baseline
data in response to the possibility of construction of Allenspur Dam on the
mainstem above Livingston, Montana. Similar information is also available
from Stadnyck (1971). Other examples of specific investigations in the basin
include:
1) the strip mine spoils and reclamation research of the Montana
Agricultural Experiment Station (Hodder et al . 1972, Hodder et al .
1973);
2) studies of sediment problems originating from the Clarks Fork
Yellowstone River drainage (Beartooth Resource Conservation and
Development Project et al . 1973); and
3) an interagency land use study of the Pryor Mountains which also
considered the problem of siltation in Crooked Creek (USDI and
USDA 1973, 1974a).
In addition, the EPA is completing a national eutrophication survey which in-
cludes the Tongue River and Yellowtail reservoirs (USEPA 1975).
More detailed listings and descriptions of the water quality and planning
studies in the Yellowstone Basin are available in the three management plans
prepared for the region by the state WQB (Karp and Botz 1975, Karp et al . 1975b,
Karp et al. 1976).
WATER QUALITY REFERENCE CRITERIA
RATIONALE
Water quality considerations are relative—that is, the suitability of
water is dependent upon its intended use. For example, the quality needed for
stockwater is different from that necessary for man's consumption and domestic
use. Criteria and standards have been developed through the years to serve as
reference points for evaluating a body of water and the levels of its various
chemical, physical, and biological constituents in relation to various water
uses. These criteria and standards can also serve as reference bases for the
general assessment and evaluation of surface waters in a given study region.
Literature sources were reviewed for those criteria and standards that would
delineate the critical concentrations of parameters in relation to the common
uses of water in the Yellowstone River Basin. These criteria serve as the
basis for the discussions of this inventory.
32
In addition to these reference criteria, other classification schemes,
descriptive in nature and not delineative of critical concentrations relative
to some water use, have been developed for certain water quality parameters.
These systems are of value in verbally describing and summarizing certain
water quality attributes. The Water Quality Index serves as one example. As
further examples, classification systems have been proposed that describe vari
ous levels of hardness and salinity. These systems are summarized in table 7.
TABLE 7. Ha
rdness and salinity
classification.
Hardness
Salim
tyb
Range (mg/1
as CaCCL)
Description
Range (mg/1
as TDS)
Description
0 to 60
Soft
<50
Non-saline (rain and
61 to 120
Moderately hard
<1,000
snow)
Non-saline (most fresh-
121 to 130
>180
Hard
Very hard
1,000 to 3,000
3,000 to 10,000
water)
Slightly saline (some
freshwater)
Moderately saline
10,000 to 35,000
>35,000
(estuaries)
Very saline (oceans and
estuaries)
Briny (miscellaneous
systems)
Durfor and Beckner 1964.
bRobinove et al . 1968.
The range of values delineating a "very hard" water was not defined as
delimiting particular water uses, nor was the "very saline" category of dis-
solved solids. However, waters with such high levels of salinity and hardness
are not suitable for certain uses. Although the American Water Works Assoc-
iation considers a water with less than 80 mg/1 hardness "ideal" (Bean 1962),
no definite limits for hardness in public water supply can be specified be-
cause consumer "... sensitivity is often related to the hardness to which
the public has become accustomed, and acceptance may be tempered by economic
considerations" (USEPA 1973). In contrast, the United States Public Health
Service (1962) recommends that waters containing dissolved solids in excess of
500 mg/1 should not be used for drinking water if other more potable and less
mineralized sources are available.
MONTANA STREAM AND WATER-USE CLASSIFICATIONS
The State of Montana had, by 1960, classified the streams of the state
according to their most beneficial uses and has also established water quality
criteria for the streams relative to these uses. This classification system
designated that streams in the state were to be kept, for the large part, in
suitable condition for water supply, fishing and other recreation, agriculture,
and for industrial water supply (Montana DHES 1973). Compliance with the water-
33
use classifications required the treatment of wastewaters untreated prior to
1960 and the improvement of some of the existing treatment facilities in
order to meet the new requirements. The stream classifications and water
quality criteria of the state were updated and upgraded after 1965 with the
passage of the Federal Water Quality Act; minor revisions were also added in
response to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Classifications and standards currently in effect became official on November
4, 1973 (Montana DHES 1973).
All surface waters in the primary and secondary inventory areas of this
study have been assigned a B-D classification by the State of Montana. The
water-use description for this class of surface water has been summarized as
follows (Montana DHES undated):
The quality is to be maintained suitable for drinking, culinary
and food processing purposes after adequate treatment equal to
coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, disinfection and any
additional treatment necessary to remove naturally present im-
purities; bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and (1) pro-
pagation of salmonid fishes (a B-D] stream), (2) marginal propa-
gation of salmonid fishes (a B-D2 stream), or (3) propagation of
non-salmonid fishes (a B-D3 water) and associated aquatic life,
waterfowl and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water
supply.
The water-use descriptions of the B-D streams contrast to that applied to E-F
waters which have a more limited use: "The quality is to be maintained for
agricultural and industrial water uses other than food processing" (Montana
DHES undated).
B-D-j surface waters in the Yellowstone River Basin (self-sustaining trout
fisheries) include the Yellowstone drainage above Laurel, the Pryor Creek
drainage, and the upper portions of the Little Bighorn-Bighorn and Clarks
Fork River drainages. B-D2 waters in the region (marginal trout fisheries)
include the Yellowstone River and tributaries between Laurel and Billings,
the lower Little Bighorn-Bighorn and Clarks Fork River drainages, the upper
Tongue River drainage, and Fox Creek in eastern Montana. The Yellowstone
River and certain of its tributaries below Billings (e.g., the Powder River
drainage and the lower Tongue River drainage) have been designated non-salmonid,
warm-water fisheries and given a B-D3 classification (Montana DHES undated).
MONTANA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Water quality standards have been established by the State of Montana for
the B-D stream classification. For some parameters, such as turbidity, the
standard specifies an allowable maximum change in stream concentration rather
than a specific upper limit; this type of standard is not amenable to use as
a reference criteria. However, definite limits or allowable ranges have been
established for other parameters by the state, and these standards can be
utilized for this purpose (Montana DHES undated); these are summarized in
table 8. In addition, Montana's water quality standards reference the 1962
U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards (or later editions) for
recommended limits on a number of water quality parameters including inorganic
materials and heavy metals (USDHEW 1962).
34
HI <TJ T- -I-
OVO-P
S- ID (O o
fO C\J
CC C\J
r— T3 CD
•r- C i_
O t3 C3
O O (_3
r^ oo *d-
•r- </) en
c w >,
•r- •!- X
^ O O
o o
r~- co
S- v- r-
00 O &5 >
EOOT
<u
CT1 S-
i — JD
(O <U
<0 E
S_ -O
fO 00 +->
ID 1/1 IO
S- TJ (J
O OO I —
$_ IT) >—i
35
DRINKING WATER AND SURFACE PUBLIC SUPPLY CRITERIA
Several communities located along the Yellowstone River, including Living-
ston, Laurel, Billings, and Miles City, use this stream as a source of public
supply for drinking water and other purposes. U.S. Public Health Service rec-
ommendations for the maximum concentrations of various water quality parameters
in drinking water, as referenced in Montana Water Quality Standards (Montana
DHES undated), are summarized in table 3. Standards for fluoride in this re-
ference are variable depending upon the "annual average of maximum daily air
temperatures" in a region (USDHEW 1962). Lower concentrations are recommended
for the warmer climates. Data to provide some idea of the magnitude of this
temperature variable in the study region of this inventory were obtained from
Karp et al . (1975b) for several weather stations in eastern Montana; this tem-
perature factor was estimated as the annual average of these stations (6.3°C,
43.3°F) plus the addition of four to eight degrees Celsius (seven to fifteen
degrees Fahrenheit) to afford an adjustment to the maximum. Fluoride standards
relative to this temperature estimation are included in table 9.
In addition to the Public Health Service standards for drinking water,
other sources were reviewed for criteria applicable to public (USEPA 1973) and
surface supply (Montana DHES undated). These criteria are also summarized in
table 9. In general, the recommended standards for specific parameters are
similar among the three sources.
AGRICULTURAL CRITERIA
Water use for stock and water use for irrigation are the major agricul-
tural uses of streams, lakes, and ponds in the inventory area. In general,
waters that have been judged to be safe for human consumption (relative to
the criteria in table 9) can also be used for the watering of stock. Animals
can, for the most part, tolerate waters with significantly higher salinities
and higher levels of dissolved constituents than can humans, although their
overall productivities may be curtailed to some extent through the utilization
of such waters (McKee and Wolf 1974). The more lenient water quality stan-
dards typically applied to stock water reflect this greater tolerance of ani-
mals to dissolved materials. Criteria for stock water, including standards
for specific dissolved constituents and for salinity along with the salinity
requirements of several domestic animals, were obtained from the EPA (1973),
McKee and Wolf (1974), and Seghetti (1951), and are summarized in tables 10-14.
Threshold levels denote the concentration of a particular constituent where
its physiological effects are first observed in an animal.
In contrast to the specific reference criteria available for animals (in-
cluding man), criteria for irrigation water are, of necessity, more arbitrary
and flexible due to the variables involved: type of soil, climate, type of
crop, and management practices. As a result, specific analyses of particular
systems can become complex, and absolute limits and general criteria cannot
be rigid (McKee and Wolf 1974).
Waters for irrigation are typically divided into broad classes such as
"excellent," "good," "injurious," and "unsatisfactory," with a set of appli-
cable chemical criteria associated with each water class. Groups of plants
are classified as tolerant, semi- or moderately tolerant, or sensitive in
relation to each water class in accordance with the plants' ability to tolerate
its chemical characteristics. McKee and Wolf (1974) conducted an extensive
36
TABLE 9. Selected water quality criteria and standards for drinking water and
public surface supply.
PHS
NTAC
EPA
Standard
Rejection
Permissible
Desirable
Constituent
Criteria
Criteria
Recommendation
Amnion i a -N
-.
__
0.5
<.01
0.5
Arsenicc
0.01
0.05
0.05
absent
0.1
Bariumc
--
1.0
1.0
absent
1.0
Boronc
Cadmium
--
--
1.0
absent
--
--
0.01
0.01
absent
0.01
Chloride0
Chromium (Cr+6)
250
--
250
<25
250
--
0.05
0.05
absent
0.05
Copperc
1.0
--
1.0
near zero
1.0
Total dissolved solids0
500
—
500
<200
.-
Fecal col i forms
(f)
(f)
2000
<20
2000
Iron
0.3
--
0.3
near zero
0.3
Leadc
--
0.05
0.05
absent
0.05
Manganese0
0.05
--
0.05
absent
0.05
Mercury0
--
—
—
--
0.0002
Nitrate0 >d ,
Nitrate-N°'a
45
--
--
.-
_-
10.2
--
--
—
10
N03+N02-Nc'd
Nitrite-N°'a
--
--
10.0
near zero
--
--
--
--
--
1.0
Oxygen (dissolved)
--
--
>3
saturated
--
pK
--
--
6.0-8.5
—
5.0-9.0
Phenols
0.001
—
0.001
absent
0.001
Selenium
--
0.01
0.01
absent
0.01
n nc
ji i ver
U. UJ
U. UD
absent
Sulfate0
250
--
250
<50
250
Turbidity (JTU)
5
--
75
near zero
--
Zinc0
5.0
--
5.0
near zero
5.0
Radioactivity as pCi/1:
Gross beta0
1000
<100
__
Radium-226°
3
<1
-.
Fluoride:0'0"
Upper 1 imit
1.5-1.7
2.2-2.4
2.2-2.4
Optimum
1.1-1.2
--
(same
)
--
Control limits
0.8-1.7
--
--
SOURCES: U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) 1962, National Technical Advisory
Committee (NTAC) 1968, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1972.
NOTE: Concentrations given in ng/1 unless otherwise specified; fecal coliforms
given as the number per 100 ml.
aThese chemical substances should not be present in water supplies in excess of
the listed concentrations where other suitable supplies are or can be made available.
The presence of these substances in excess of the listed concentrations consti-
tutes grounds for rejection of the supply.
cTreatment--defined as coagulation, sedimentation, rapid sand filtration, and
chlorination--has little effect on these constituents.
Adverse physiological effects on infants may occur in extremely high concen-
trations.
Criteria varies with the annual average of maximum daily air temperatures;
with fluoridation, average fluoride levels should be kept within the control limits.
Criteria varies with the volume of sample, sampling frequency, and analytical
technique.
37
PH
6.0 and
TDS
2500
HC03
500
Ca
500
CI
1500
F
1.0
Mg
250
Na
1000
so4
500
As
TABLE 10. Water quality criteria for stock as set forth
by the California Water Quality Control Board.
Threshold Level Limiting Level
8.5 5.6 and 9.0
5000
500
1000
3000
6.0
500
2000
1000
1.0
SOURCE: California Water Quality Control Board 1963,
NOTE: Concentrations expressed in mg/1.
TABLE 11. Water quality criteria recommended by the EPA
for stock.
Chemical Constituents Recommended Concentrations
(in mg/1)
Al 5
As 0.2
B 5.0
Cd 0.05
Cr 1.0
Co 1.0
Cu 0.5
F 2.0
Pb 0.1
Hg 0.01
NO2+NO3-N 100
N02-N 10
Se 0.05
V 0.1
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1973.
38
TABLE 12. Threshold salinity (TDS) levels for
farm animals.
Animal Salinity Level
Poultry 2,860
Pigs 4,290
Horses 6,435
Dairy cattle 7,150
Beef cattle 10,000
Adult dry sheep 12,900
SOURCE: McKee and Wolf 1974.
MOTE: Concentrations expressed in mg/1.
TABLE 13. Use and effect of saline waters on livestock and poultry.
Use and Effect Salinity Level
Excellent for all stock <1 ,000
Very satisfactory for livestock and poultry; temporary 1,000-3,000
effects, if any
Satisfactory for livestock; poor for poultry 3,000-5,000
Permissible for livestock; unacceptable for poultry 5,000-7,000
and lactating animals
Somewhat risky with older livestock and poor for swine; 7,000-10,000
unacceptable for young and lactating animals and for
poultry
Generally unsuitable for most animals >10,000
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1973.
NOTE: Concentrations expressed in mg/1.
TABLE 14. Montana salinity classification of waters.
Water Class Salinity Range
Good <2500
Fair 2500-3500
Poor 3500-4500
Unfit >4500
SOURCE: Seghetti 1951.
NOTE: Measurements expressed in mg/1.
39
survey of the literature and developed the classification scheme for irrigation
waters presented in tables 15 and 16. Also included in this table are recom-
mendations for the maximum concentrations of trace elements that should be
present in irrigation waters used continuously on all soils (USEPA 1973). The
chemical criteria in this table can be used to judge the quality of Yellowstone
River Basin water for irrigative use. Classification of the boron and salinity
tolerances of Yellowstone Basin crops, garden plants, and forage are presented
in table 17 (Allison 1964, Hem 1970).
Agricultural Handbook No. 60 (USDA 1954) lists four broad ranges or
classes of salinity in relation to a water's use for irrigation--a low salinity
hazard with specific conductances (SC) less than 250 umhos/cm at 25°C, a medium
salinity hazard (SC = 250 to 750 umhos), a high salinity hazard (SC = 750 to
2250 ymhos), and a very high salinity hazard (SC > 2250). These classes, in
combination with four sodium hazard ranges based on the sodium adsorption ratios
of a water (Hem 1970) provide sixteen classes of water with varying levels of
value for irrigation use (Richards 1954). The CI -SI class of water is probably
suitable for the watering of most plants under most conditions, whereas the
C4-S4 class is probably unsuitable for irrigation except in a few unique cases.
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Water quality criteria in this case deal with two aspects of the biology
of aquatic systems: (1) critical nutrient levels that indicate eutrophic con-
ditions, and (2) the concentrations of particular parameters that might prove
to be toxic or harmful to aquatic life. As with irrigation waters, such cri-
teria are difficult to establish in a definitive sense due to the variability
among biological systems and among individual organisms. However, general
levels can be established for some parameters that at least serve as first-
order approximations of critical concentrations, and these can be used as
reference criteria in water quality inventories.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Lund (1965), in his extensive literature review, concluded that "nitrogen
and phosphorus can still be considered as two of the major elements limiting
primary production." Gerloff and Skoog (1957) suggested that nitrogen appears
to be the more critical factor in the limitation of algal production in natural
waters because phosphorus is often stored in excess in algal cells beyond ac-
tual need (luxury uptake). But phosphorus concentrations can be very low in
some waters, and this parameter may be the more limiting parameter in these
particular cases (Lund 1965). Specific criteria describing the critical levels
of nitrogen and phosphorus limiting to aquatic systems and necessary to pro-
mote nuisance algae blooms have not been firmly established due to the complex-
ity of the relationships between these two constituents and between these two
constituents and the remaining chemical and physical -biological components of an
ecosystem (USEPA 1973). As a result, such criteria, as developed through sev-
eral investigations, are variable. For example, the EPA (1974b) in its National
Water Quality Inventory used 0.1 mg/1 of total-P and 0.3 mg/1 of dissolved phos-
phate (0.1 mg/1 of P04-P) and 0.9 mg/1 of nitrite plus nitrate (as N) as re-
ference criteria for these constituents. However, based on information from
40
-c x:
en en
1
E
Z3
<U
E
-c x:
>-> >,
S- s_
CD CU
> >
o
o
o
o
o
CO
1
o
1
o
o
If)
CNJ
A
O
o
o
1
o
o
in
o
o
o
ro
1
o
o
Lf)
CM
A
o
CM
o
CM
1
CM
1
>*
A
kO
•-O
1
CM
1
cr>
A
iX)
<£>
1
o
I
O
A
o
O
CM
V
V
1-1
•r- T- "O
C O C r—
O -l- I—
"O CU C 1-
a>
cu
>i
c
S-
-O
3
o
M- ••
<o
4-
4->
O) i/i
+J
E
u
-O 3
s_
rO
o
!3
03
M-
CU <—
tO
-C
</I
S- r—
(13 O
4->
4-
"O
l/l
fO
to
o
3
on
CU to
o
O
C
to rtJ
en
3
CO
S.
«3 "T3
o
3
3
■— <u
+->
••-)
4->
O E
C
+->
en
S- 4-
c:
3
CU CU
cu
o
o
+-> -o
■ —
+J
•i—
x: •— • •— • •— •
w c t-
i — >■> <o
o +-> -4->
4- -r- -r-
tO tO -i-
•i- +-> tO O >
i — +•> to CU
tx3 O -r- i — Q-
Ol E U S- Q.
■<- CU O C 3
S- S- C4- O
L CU C o
. — -i- O to
.O 3 -(-> •■- O
3 o cu c c:
41
TABLE 16. Recommended maximum concentrations of trace elements for all plants
in continuously used irrigation waters.
Trace Element Recommendation
Al 5.0
Be 0.1
Cd 0.01
Cr 0.1
Co 0.05
Cu 0.2
F 1.0
Fe 5.0
Pb 5.0
Li 2.5
Mn 0.2
Mo 0.01
Ni 0.2
Se 0.02
V 0.1
Zn 2.0
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1973).
NOTE: Recommendations expressed in mg/1.
42
rO-Q
O) co
"o o
+-> 4J
•t- to
E— -
<u
1/1
S-~Q
O -—
>■>
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
4-
o
O to Q.
01
(T3 u
5- n3
— hi hit) m « c io to
s_ cnas-r- Q.T- aj cu+f
n33(0(aT3toQ.>)
t— O) i — O) O CD O)
O CT>4- <-> O Q-4->
U nj -i- 3 +J -i-1 OC
U-Qi — +-> <U A' — *- O
O J3 13 -l-> CD -t-> t— S--^
(T3 (O <L> 3 O 0) tj
6uiI^l-coooj^Q-couoii.tou
to E "O to c
ra 3 r— •.- CD
3 U d)T3 ai
43
1- O
tO 4->
c
<D CO
X X X X X
03.0
oi CO
+-> 4->
I
•r- 1X5
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
•=3-
xxxxxxxxx
0) i/l I/)
•i- 0) l/l ID
S_ •.- QJ •.-
s- s_ •.- s-
d) S- S- s-
-O <1) S- <1)
C JO QJ -Q
i — to O Q. 03
aOr- l0 4->
<C CO CO Q£ OO
03
S- 03
l/l CT> to "O
(13 +-> l/l i — -C
to S- 03 03 •<— 3
(/i oi ai s- 5
t3 <a .c oi c
1.T3 J W «J i.
ct> -3 ai "O ai
+-> E i— T3 03 -l->
■— i- r— O C tO
nj ai ior fl a)
wcoi-q:o3
0) >>-!-> S- s_
3 B <1J
o x: +-> > .—
to O O 13
0) O r- -r-
<*- >>u- o c
<D to +-> c
I— r— T3 0) dJ
.— S_ J_ OI i-
IB IB -r- 5 <D
t— CO CO 00 Q_
O to
S- <B S
u
I/]
CD
>i i/i to
Ol to S- 03 to O ' — "
C to i- 1- 03 i — >->
•>-C71Qja)CT)S-Oo303
03Ci — JD to en 4-JZ
-(-> •■- -O S -r- C E r— —
COS-lBr-iBiBiB
3 S- 03 S- .— T3 J~J <+- CD
O030)4->0333i— >-,
5^
, — ..
ITS
ra
>^
S-
c
01
cn
T
-n
+J
03
m
to
JC
QJ
+J
U
44
•i- o
l/l +J
<U CO
n3_Q
S- '— -
O) CO
o o
-!-> +->
I
•I- CO
5o
i— O
QJ -M
c
o
•r-
O
to
+J
+J
4-
i-
1
c
QJ
l/l
p
C
O
(U
C:J
o
+J
in
</l
c
+J CO
rt3 O
_ S--O-C OI-MOi— _
uj1*- c^xi m u > 3t- u > u
S_ T30J CD -M O "O O
cnSuS-xiECDr— 2 OJ i— O +->
o +->+-> >oaio.2«iUcaj
OIT3-0 Oi — -^ s- +-> -o m- m- E
3 (O d) OlOi — i — 3m— IO CO "O X3 4-
r— OJIljT-ElO'i-OXair- 01(03
m2:LtcDwh-5:w35:<a_iai
45
other sources, lower, more stringent criteria for M and P have been adopted
for use in this inventory in judging the eutrophic potential of streams.
Phosphorus levels exceeding 0.2 mg/1 hav- produced no problems in some
potable supplies (USEPA 1973). In uncontaminated lakes, phosphorus has been
found in the range of 0.01 to 0.03 mg/1 and higher (Salvato 1958). Federal
surveys have indicated that 4G percent of the aquatic sites sampled across
the nation had phosphorus concentrations in excess of 0.05 mg/1 (Gunnerson
1966). The EPA (1973) has suggested that total phosphorus in concentrations
less than 0.05 mg/1 would probably restrict nuisance plant growths in flowing
waters.
In contrast, much higher concentrations of inorganic nitrogen are neces-
sary to initiate algal blooms, studies have indicated that excessive growths
of plants are avoided when inorganic nitrogen concentrations are less than
0.35 mg/1 (Mackenthun 1969, Muller 1953). These two values--0.05 mg/1 for
phosphorus and 0.35 mg/1 for inorganic nitrogen--can serve as general refer-
ence criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus in waters of the Yellowstone Basin.
Streams or lentic systems in the basin with total-P (or PO4-P if total-P data
are unavailable) or inorganic nitrogen (or NOo-Nj NOo+NO^-N) concentrations
less than 0.05 mg/1 and 9.35 mg/1, respectively, might be reliably judged as
noneutrophic or oligotrophic. Waters with phosphorus and nitrogen concentra-
tions in excess of 0.1 ng/1 and 0.9 mg/1, respectively (USEPA 1974b), can be
judged as eutrophic. Intermediate concentrations of P and N (i.e., 0.05-0.10
mg/1 and 0.35 to 0.90 mg/1, respectively) suggest, at a lower degree of pre-
dictive success, potentially eutrophic waters.
Other Constituents
In addition to nitrogen and phosphorus, a variety of other water quality
constituents affect aquatic life. Such effects can be positive and beneficial
to the biota of an ecosystem at particular concentrations (e.g., availability
of essential elements in appropriate concentrations, appropriate temperatures,
adequate dissolved oxygen levels, absence of toxic substances, and appropriate
salinity and turbidity levels), but can be detrimental at other levels (e.g.,
low and limiting concentrations of an essential element, excessively high tem-
peratures, low dissolved oxygen concentrations and high organic loads, pres-
ence of toxic substances, high concentrations of TDS and suspended materials).
Most commonly, attention is directed toward the potential detrimental effects
of these constituents on a biota when their concentrations become too high or
too low in a water—either in a toxic-lethal or depressing sense on individual
organisms or in the sense of reducing the biomass or number of individuals and
species in a community (thereby altering its diversity and structure) and of
lowering its primary and secondary productivity. A list of such affecting
parameters would include the most obvious--oxygen, temperature, pH, salinity,
various common constituents, turbidity-suspended sediment, nitrogen, and phos-
phorus—along with the trace elements and such toxic substances as herbicides,
pesticides, and heavy metals. Reference criteria for dissolved oxygen, pH,
and temperature in Montana's B-D-| , B-Do, and B-D3 streams have been described
previously (table 8). The ranges of pR listed for such streams are similar to
those recommended by the Committee on Water Quality Criteria to afford a
moderate-to-high level of protection in a body of water (USEPA 1973). The
46
criteria for dissolved oxygen in a B-D3 stream is identical to that recommended
by Ellis (1944) for a mixed, warm-water fish population.
Suspended Sediment and Turbidity
Concerning suspended sediment, the European Inland Fisheries Advisory
Commission (1965) and the EPA (1973) came to the following conclusions:
1) There is no evidence that concentrations of suspended solids
less than 25 mg/1 have any harmful effects on fisheries (a
high level of protection at 25 mg/1).
2) It should usually be possible to maintain good or moderate
fisheries in waters that normally contain 25 to 80 mg/1 suspended
solids; other factors being equal, however, the yield of fish
from such waters might be somewhat lower than from those in the
preceding category (a moderate level of protection at 80 mg/1).
3) Waters normally containing from 80 to 400 mg/1 suspended solids
are unlikely to support good freshwater fisheries, although
fisheries may sometimes be found at lower concentrations within
this range (a low level of protection at 400 mg/1).
4) Only poor fisheries are likely to be found in waters that con-
tain more than 400 mg/1 suspended solids (a very low level of
protection over 400 mg/1).
These conclusions form a reference for this important variable. For the Yellow-
stone system, suspended sediment concentrations can be converted to turbidity
in Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU) with some degree of precision (r=0.95) using
a graph available in Karp et al. (1976b), resulting in the reference system
shown in table 18.
TABLE 18. Impact reference system for turbidity and suspended sediment.
Suspended Sediment Corresponding Turbidity
Class of Fishery3 Range (mg/1) Range (JTU)
Excellent <25 <8
Good to Moderate 25 to 80 8 to 26
Fair to Poor 30 to 400 26 to 91
Very Poor >400 >91
aThis assumes that other factors are not limiting.
Table 18's reference levels forsuspended materials and turbidity imply a
relatively constant exposure of a fishery to the indicated concentrations
(e.g., as expressed by a median value) in order to invoke the associated type
of fishery (excellent to ^ery poor), as fish can tolerate relatively high
concentrations for limited periods of time (Whalen 1951). Waters with med-
ian levels of suspended solids and turbidity of 15 mg/1 and 5 JTU and occa-
sional extremes of 100 mg/1 and 30 JTU would be expected to provide conditions
for a better fishery than a stream with medians of 70 mg/1 and 23 JTU and
47
occasional extremes of 150 mg/1 and 40 JTU, and waters with medians of 100 mg/1
and 30 JTU should be more productive than streams with medians of 300 mg/1 and
70 JTU. However, "... although several thousand parts per million suspended
solids may not kill fish during several hours or days exposure, temporary high
concentrations should be prevented in rivers where good fisheries are to be
maintained. The spawning Grounds of most fish should be kept as free as pos-
sible from finely divided solids" (USEPA 1973). A stream with generally low med-
ian suspended sediment and turbidity levels (e.g., <10G mg/1 and <30 JTU) but
with high and temporary concentrations of sediment at certain periods of the
year (e.g., 400 mg/1 and 01 JTU) may be able to support a migratory or stocked
fishery in its waters but not a resident (breeding) population, because the
pulse of sediment could eliminate spawning grounds.
Salinity
The salinity level (dissolved solids concentration) of freshwater lentic
and lotic systems is important in the assessment of its aquatic biota as well
as in judging its potential for irrigation. According to the EPA (1973):
The quantity ant! nuality cf dissolved solids are major fac-
tors in determining the variety and abundance of plants and
animals in an aquatic system. ... A major change in the
quantity or composition of total dissolved solids changes the
structure and function of aouetic ecosystems . . .
However, "... such changes are difficult to predict" (USEPA 1973).
Hart et al. (1945) observed that only five percent of the inland waters
supporting a mixed biota had salinities in excess of 400 mg/1 (as specific
conductance greater than about 600 ymhos/cm at 25°C, however, ten percent of
these waters had dissolved solid concentrations greater than 400 mg/1. This
discrepancy between percentages may illustrate a breaking point in the success
of freshwater communities at 400 mg/1. Ellis (1944) recommends that a maximum
specific conductance of 1000 ymhos (about 670 mg/1 of dissolved constituents),
and possibly approaching 2000 ymhos, is permissible in western alkaline streams
in order to support a good mixed fish fauna. Incorporating these sources yields
the following general reference criteria: healthy, mixed aquatic communities
would be expected to be found in waters with dissolved solid concentrations
less than 400 mg/1 given no other affecting factors, some adverse effects might
be expected with safinities greater than 4no mg/1 and approaching 670 mg/1. In
turn, a salinity in excess of 2000 ymhos (about 1350 mg/1) would be detrimental
to most freshwater systems.
Trace Elements and Toxic Substances
In addition to the more common parameters described previously, a variety
of trace elements and toxic substances can also dramatically affect aquatic
systems. These are generally difficult to assess because their effects are
often variable among individual organisms and species and are dependent upon
the nature of the remaining chemical constituents of a water; for example,
effects can vary with the level of hardness in a system. As a result, such
40
factors as acclimatization and antagonistic-synergistic reactions would have
to be considered for a complete discussion of one of tiiese parameters in a
particular body of water. However, the Committee on Water Quality Criteria
(L'SEPA 1973) has established, for certain of these constituents, recommenda-
tions for an absolute or maximum concentration that should be present in
freshwater or seawater, lower concentrations could be recommended for parti-
cular cases. General recommendations from this committee and from other re-
ferences for certain of these parameters, including the metals, are summarized
in table 19. These recommendations can be used as reference criteria for the
corresponding variables in water quality discussions. Recommendations devel-
oped by the Committee on Water Quality Criteria (USEPA 1373) and other sources
for other trace elements and toxicants are considered for those streams where
appropriate data are available.
TABULAR AND STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
In tables summarizing the water quality information available for the
Yellowstone River Basin (primary and secondary inventory areas), the common
constituents and metals are designated by their accepted chemical symbols.
Concentrations are given as milligrams per liter (mg/1). Distinctions are
made between total recoverable and dissolved metals. Parameters consistently
tabulated through the basin discussions of this report include those for which
data are regularly available from the USGS or the state WQB for the various
stream stations. Other water quality variables, such as the pesticides, which
have less consistent data for the basin, will be considered separately for
those streams where such data are available. The concentrations of critical
nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen species) are listed in the tables according
to their P or N components rather than their radical weights; where available,
total-P and (N0o+N03)-N data were used in the statistical determinations;
where unavailable, the concentrations of the ortho-PO^-P and NO^-N species
were used as subsets of the preferred forms. Additional abbreviations and
concentration units that have been used for other water quality parameters
summarized in the tables can be listed as follows:
BOD five-day, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) in mg/1
DO dissolved oxygen in mg/1
E an estimated flow
FC fecal coliforms as counts (colonies) per 100 ml of sample
Flow stream discharge in cubic feet per second (cfs); flow in cfs can
be converted to flow in cubic meters per second (m3/sec) as fol-
lows: m3/sec = 0.0283 x cfs
Max the maximum value of a parameter that occurs in a set of data
from a particular stream station (high extreme)
Med the median value of a parameter that occurs in a set of data
from a particular stream station--the middle value in an ordered
or ranked set of figures, i.e., 50 percent of the remaining
values occur above the median and 50 percent below the median
concentration
49
TABLE 19. Recommended maximum concentrations of trace elements for freshwater
aquatic life and for marine aquatic life.
Trace Element Recommended Maximum Concentrations
Al 0.1 mg/1 (B); >1.5 mg/1 hazard, <0.2 mg/1 minimal risk (C)
Ag >.005 mg/1 hazard, < . 001 mg/1 minimal risk (C)
As 1.0 mg/1 (A); >.05 mg/1 hazard, <.01 mg/1 minimal risk (C);
arsenic tends to be concentrated by aquatic organisms
B >5.0 mg/1 hazard, <5.0 mg/1 minimal risk (C)
Ba 5.0 mg/1 (tentative) (A) ; >1.0 mg/1 hazard, <.5 mg/1 minimal risk
(C); barium tends to be concentrated by aquatic organisms
Be >1.0 mg/1 hazard, <0.1 mg/1 minimal risk (C); based on data from
hard freshwater
Cd 0.03 mg/1 if hardness >100 mg/1 as CaCO,, 0.004 mg/1 if hardness
<100 mg/1 (B); >.01 mg/1 hazard, < .2 ug/1 minimal risk (C);
synergistic with copper and zinc
Co about 1.0 mg/1 (tentative) (A)
Cr 0.05 mg/1 (A,B); >.l mg/1 hazard, <.05 mg/1 minimal risk (C);
particularly toxic to lower forms of aquatic life--accumulates
at all trophic levels
Cu 0.02 mg/1 freshwater, 0.05 mg/1 seawater (A); >.05 mg/1 hazard,
<.01 mg/1 minimal risk (C)
Cyanide 0.005 mg/1 (B); >0.01 mg/1 hazard, <.005 mg/1 minimal risk (C)
F 1.5 mg/1 (A); >1.5 mg/1 hazard, <.5 mg/1 minimal risk (C)
Fe <.2 mg/1 (A); >.3 mg/1 hazard, <.05 mg/1 minimal risk (C)
Total Hg 0.2 ug/1 (grab sample), 0.05 ug/1 (average)(B) ; >.l ug/1 hazard
(C)
Mn 1.0 mg/1 (A); >.l mg/1 hazard, <.02 mg/1 minimal risk (C);
manganese tends to be concentrated by aquatic organisms
MU
, . .3., 0.02 mg/1 (B); >0.4 mg/1 hazard, <.01 mg/1 minimal risk (C)
(unionized) " v ' 3 a
Ni >.l mg/1 hazard, <.002 mg/1 minimal risk (C)
Pb <.l mg/1 (A); 0.03 mg/1 (B); >.05 mg/1 hazard, <.01 mg/1 minimal
risk (C)
Phenols 0.2 mg/1 (A); 0.1 mg/1 (B); 0.02 mg/1 to 0.15 mg/1, potential
tainting of fish flesh (B); 0.001 mg/1 reference criteria (D)
Se >.01 mg/1 hazard, <.005 mg/1 minimal risk (C)
Zn >.l mg/1 hazard, <.02 mg/1 minimal risk (C)
SOURCES: (A) McKee and Wolf (1974).
(B) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1973) ("Freshwater
Aquatic Life and Wildlife").
(C) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1973) ("Marine
Aquatic Life and Wildlife").
(D) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1974).
Kin the minimum value of a parameter that occurs in a set of data
from a particular stream station (low extreme)
N concentration cf nitrogen species in mg/1 as elemental nitrogen
excluding organic and ammonia ni Lrogen
N. the number of data points comprising a parametric set of data
P concentration cf phosphorus species in mg/1 as elemental phos-
phorus
pH in standard units
SAP. sodium adsorption ratio; see Hem (197C), pp. 228-229, for
definition
SC specific conductance in umhos/cm at 25°C
TA total alkalinity as mg/1 of CaC03
TDS total dissolved solids in mg/1 calculated as the sun of consti-
tuents or determined as the weight of filterable residue after
evaporation at 82°C (180°F)
Temp temperature in degrees Celsius
TH total hardness as mg/1 of CaCC^
TSS total suspended solids in mg/1
Turb turbidity in Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU)
Minimum, maximum, and median values listed for temperature and specific
conductance were those obtained from grab samples rather than from continuous
or once-daily records.
In addition to the more common parameters listed previously, miscellaneous
constituents can also be important in some instances in reducing the quality of
water in streams. As a result, these oarameters will also be considered for
those streams and stations where appropriate data are available. Such para-
meters and associated symbols, concentrational units, and related information
can be summarized as follows:
COD chemical oxygen demand in mg/1 is a measure of oxidizable com-
pounds in a sample through dichromate reduction (APHA et al. 1971,
USDI 1966-1974b)
Color an aesthetic evaluation in platinum-cobalt units (APHA et al. 1971)
color in water is generally caused by unknown, dissolved organic
materials of high molecular weight and is generally unnoticeable
to the human eye at less than 10 units (Hem 1970)
51
MBAS methylene blue active substance in mg/1 ; MEAS is a measure of
apparent detergents after the formation of a blue color when
the methylene blue Aye reacts with synthetic deteraent compounds
(USDI 1966-1974b)
O&G oil and grease in mg/1 as measured gravimetrically after petrol-
eum ether extraction and evaporation (APHA et al. 1971)
TOC total organic carbon in mg/1
Phenols are determined in milligrams per liter following methods outlined in
Standard Methods (APHA et al. 1971).
When large amounts of water quality data are available, a statistical sum-
mary is necessary for each sampling station. In the ST03ET summaries, the
mean, variance, and other statistics from the available data for each parameter
are presented for each sampling location. This approach compacts the data and
allows for overall comparisons, however, a mean, in most cases, is probably
not the best estimator of central tendency. Since the concentrations of water
quality parameters tend to be affected by flow quantities to varying degrees,
parametric concentrations do not generally approach a normal distribution but
are most often skewed to some extent, which weights the mean. For example, the
distribution of dissolved solids levels (concentrations versus the percentage
of samples having a particular concentration) may be skewed to the right (high)
because high concentrations are obtained for a large proportion of the year at
low flows but with a few samples of extremely low concentrations obtained during
the high-flow periods of much shorter duration. These low values then can weight
the mean concentration of a parameter toward low, so that the mean would not
reflect the most common concentration of the constituent over the year. The
opposite would be true for parameters which have concentrations directly related
to flow, e.g., suspended sediment and fecal coliforms, with a weighting toward
high producing excessively large means.
The EPA (1974b) took a different approach in its National Water Quality
Inventory and used the median concentration of a parameter as an expression of
central tendency; it also determined the 15th (low concentration) and the 85th
(high concentration) percentiles of a parametric data set which served to illus-
trate the degree of dispersion or typical concentration range, excluding the
extreme values (USEPA 1974a). With one modification, this approach was gener-
ally utilized in the Yellowstone Basin water quality inventory conducted by the
state WQB for this study. Since post-1965 data from the basin viere of insuffi-
cient magnitude for the calculation of meaningful 15th and 85th percentiles,
the maximum and minimum values of a data set were used to indicate the degree
of dispersion; these are representative of the true concentration range of a
parameter since the extreme values are included. In a few cases in which un-
iquely high concentrations were obtained for particular constituents, the next
highest value served as the maximum value. In general, the median would appear
to be a better indicator of central tendency in non-normal data than the mean
since the median provides a definite middle point of reference.
Two types of water quality parameters were recognized in this survey:
1) the major parameters most typically considered in water quality
52
surveys (e.g., comnon ionic constituents, cissclvtc oxygen, susp; i
sediment, pH, ar.d critical nutrients) and for whic! I r-
ally large amounts of data, and
2) the miscellaneous constituents and trace elements whic1- are not as
commonly considered in inventories or are related to specific pro-
blems (e.g., MBAS, fecal strop, cyanide, various metals, aii'mc ia,
and so fort11) and/or for which data are comparatively sparse in most
cases.
Due to these differences, two distinct approaches were used in i!c statistical
summaries of these two parameter groups.
An attempt was made to classify according to flow all of the data avail-
able for the major parameters at each sampling station. This classification,
based primarily on the discharge cycle of the Yellowstone River, consisted of
four periods: months which generally have high flows (spring runoff in 'lay,
June, and July), warm-weather low flows (August, September, and October), cold-
weather low flows (November, December, January, d\"d February), or spring flows
(March and April). The March-April period was distinguished because many of
the lowland streams have a runoff period at this time, earlier than the "lay-
July runoff period in streams with mountainous origins. Parametric medians
and ranges were then determined from these seasonally classified subsets cf
data.
For stations (typically the non-USGS sites) on which data for the major
parameters were missing for some seasons or for which only a few readings were
available for this seasonal separation, the data were directly classified ac-
cording to flow (where possible) by developing twe subsets of parametric
values--one for samples obtained during relatively high flows (>8.0 cfs) and
one for samples obtained during low- flow periods (<S.C cfs in this instance).
Medians and maximum-minimum values for each parameter were then determined from
these flow-classified subsets.
For some stations, data were insufficient for even this latter type of
separation, and the parametric median, maximum, and minimum values for these
stations were determined from the entire set of data. In some instances, water
quality data from closely related stations on a stream were combined and the
statistics then determined either directly from the combined set of data or
from subsets as described atovc. Statistics thus derived would describe a
stream reach rather than a specific location. For some drainage areas, data
from closely associated streams were combined to increase the sample size,
this data would describe a region rather than a stream location or reach. In
all water quality tables presented in the following section cf this report, the
sample sizes of each of the parameter-data sets (!) involved in the median,
maximum, and minimum determinations dre given to provide a basis for judging
reliability.
Tue to the general lack of information, no attempt was made to classify
by flow the miscellaneous constituents or trace elements. In most instances,
data for these parameters from two to several adjacent locations on a stream
or from several stations on associated streams in a drainage were amalgamated
to increase sample size for the median, maximum, and minimum determinations.
Through these various statistical approaches, some order should be im-
parted to the large amounts of diverse water quality data now available for
the Yellowstone River Basin. Some meaningful conclusions concerning the
status of water quality in the drainage might then be derived from this data.
IMPACTS OF WATER WITHDRAWALS
DESCRIPTION OF METHODS
Introduction
TDS was the principal water quality parameter modeled; it was chosen for
several reasons:
1) it can be a limiting factor for several beneficial uses, including
drinking water, irrigation, industrial, and fish and aquatic life;
2) common constituents and hardness generally are linearly related to
TDS;
3) adequate records of TDS are available from publications of the
USGS;
4) TDS is relatively easy to model, being a conservative substance that
is transported with the water;
5) for a given reach of stream, TDS is highly correlated with electri-
cal conductivity, which can be measured easily and inexpensively; and
6) TDS is an indicator of the overall chemical quality of the water.
Nonconservative parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, bio-
chemical oxygen demand, and col i form bacteria generally are not a problem in
the Yellowstone River Basin. Detailed analysis of these parameters was not
a primary goal of this study; however, streams on which future development
seems likely to adversely affect nonconservative parameters are identified.
General
The basic principle governing the analysis is that mass must be conserved.
All water and dissolved minerals available to the basin in a given time period
(a month in this case) will be removed permanently from the system, stored
temporarily for release later, or discharged from the basin via the stream or
groundwater during the same month. The quantity of water available is ob-
tained from hydrologic simulations (refer to task 9); the corresponding salt
load is computed from regression equations relating average monthly TDS to
total monthly discharge.
Figure 2 illustrates the gross movement of water and salt within the
basin. The following equations account mathematically for the water and salt:
54
Undiverted
Qu, LTDS.,
Energy Diversions
QE, LTDSE
Irrigation Diversions
Q,, LTDS,
Municipal Diversions
V LTDSM
Net Flow Leaving Basin
V LTDSN
Return Flow
QR, LTDSR
Figure 2. Simplified diagram of water and salt movement.
i) QN = qT-QE-Ql -QM + QR
2) LTDSN = LTDST - LTDSE - LTDSj - LTDS,, + LTDSR
where:
QN is net flow leaving the basin
QT is total flow available before diversions
QF is diversion for energy
QT is diversion for new irrigation
Qw is diversion for new municipal use
Qp is return flow
LTDSN is net salt load leaving the basin
LTDST is total load of salt in QN
LTDSE is salt load in Q£
LTDSj is salt load in Qj
55
LTDSM is salt load in QM
LTDSR is salt load in QR
The flows are in acre-feet and salt load is in tons. Therefore, the concen-
trations of TDS in mg/1 is calculated as follows:
3) TDS = Q (.00136)
The equations are applied for each month. Additional details are described
in the following sections.
Regression Equation for TDS
Published records of the USGS were used to obtain basic data on discharge
and TDS. Water quality data are reported as concentrations (mg/1) for periods
usually ranging from one to thirty days. Samples are collected daily and com-
posited by discharge before analysis so that results represent discharge-
weighted averages for the compositing period. Published values for TDS were
weighted by water volume for each compositing period during a month in order
to obtain monthly discharge-weighted values. For example, the following in-
formation was' published for the Yellowstone River at Miles City:
Date Discharge TDS
Nov. 1-12,1974 11,200 cfs 503 mg/1
Nov. 13-30, 1974 9,740 cfs 477 mg/1
The discharge-weighted average monthly TDS is computed as follows:
xnc 12 x 11,200 x 503 + 18 x 9,740 x 477 _ .RS> .,
TDSave " 12 x 11,200 + 18 x 9,740 488 mg/1
Where the compositing period covered parts of two months, the water volume
was linearly apportioned according to the number of days in each month cov-
ered by the composite analysis.
The quantity of dissolved minerals in natural water is primarily a func-
tion of the tvoe of rocks or soils with which the water has been in contact,
the duration of contact, and the pH of the water. Groundwater, which supplied
much of the flow in dry, low-flow months is normally more highly mineralized
than surface runoff. Hence, TDS of water in the stream is usually less when
streamflow is high because surface runoff tends to dilute the base flow from
groundwater. Both surface runoff and groundwater, however, vary in quality
with time and location in response to natural geologic and hydrologic pheno-
mena and as a result of man's activities such as agriculture, mining, oil
well drilling, and industrial and municipal pollution. Consequently, the
expected inverse relationship between TDS and Q may not be well-defined mathe-
matically for all stations, or the "best-fit" equation may take different forms
for different stations or for different periods of the year at a given station.
56
Regression equations were obtained for TDS (average monthly total dis-
solved solids in mg/1) as a function of Q (total monthly discharge, acre-feet).
Resulting equations were of the following forms:
4) TDS = a + b Q
5) TDS = c + d log Q
6) log TDS = e + f log Q
7) log TDS = g + h Q
Generally, data most often fit equations 5 and 6 better than 4 or 7. Equations
were obtained for all stations in ttie basin with adequate records. For some
stations, sufficient records were available to enable equations to be derived
for each month of the year. Equations were tested for statistical significance
using tables developed by^Snedecor (1946). Generally, the significant regres-
sion equations produced r values ranging from 0.60-0.90, indicating that Q
accounted for 60 to 90 percent of the variation in TDS.
Conservation of Water and Salt
Generally, water quality records for 1951-1974 were used to develop the
regression equations. No station, however, had more than 19 years of record
during this period; most had less. It was assumed that these data represented
the normal situation, i.e., the cause-effect relationship was constant. For
calculation purposes, any changes in the causative factors were assumed to be
superimposed upon the normal relationship. For example, the Q the TDS used in
deriving the regression equations represent the "total available" values indi-
cated in figure 2. The QT and LTDST are for the basin outflow under normal
conditions. Therefore, in order to use the equation derived for TDS versus
Q, Q must be the normal unaltered value at the basins outlet, which then
makes it possible to obtain the corresponding normal TDS. Once QT and LTDS-,
are established (see the explanations below for columns 1, 2, and 3), the
logic of figure 2 and equations 1 and 2 can be employed. Table 20 illus-
trates the application of the regression equations and equations 1, 2, and 3
to a representative subbasin, the Tongue River. An explanation of each col-
umn is presented below.
Column 1. Total Available, Water (af). These numbers represent the
flow that would pass Miles City if no diversions occurred other than those
occurring under normal conditions; in other words, historical flows.
Column 2. Total Available TDS (mg/1). These values are obtained from
the regression equations between TDS and Q, using column 1 values for Q.
For April the appropriate equation is TDS = 1524.7 - 217.70712 log Q, which
yields a TDS of 580 for a Q of 21,888.
Column 3. Total Available TDS (tons). The load of dissolved salts in
tons is obtained from equation 3 by multiplying column 1 x Column 2 x 0.00136
(a conversion factor).
Column 4. Energy Diversion. Water. The amount of water diverted for
energy purposes, given from the level of development assumed.
57
^ s
-— ^
oo
( —
co
i —
CTl
i —
^f
UO
oo
in
CO
r--
CO
uo
, —
CM
Q
co
LT)
CO
CO
CO
o
CO
00
CTi
co
CM
t—
cn
in
CO
«3-
CO
<X5
r-.
UD
ID
ID
UO
<3-
CO
e
2
to
CO
CTi
C0
co
00
,_
CM
m
^_
CO
o
o
CTi
CO
UD
CTi
CO
CM
r^.
o
CTl
CM
VO
I--
CTI
CO
CO
CTi
CTI
CTl
ID
VO
<+-
Z
it-
■ '
+->
Cr
tO
i —
LT)
VO
r-
CM
LT)
^t-
in
CO
O
i —
r~-
UO
rs
CM
VO
CTl
CM
CTl
o
1 —
CM
UO
■21
,_^
CTl
O
CO
CTl
co
"*
U0
CO
,
00
CM
r^.
o
OO
l/l
O
uo
CTi
«d"
UO
CTI
co
CTI
CM
CTl
CTi
O
c
CO
CM
CO
CO
o
CTI
r^
co
OO
ID
CO
o
1—
o
1 —
_l
+->
VO
CTi
VO
o
CO
^d"
<^-
CO
CM
o
CTl
co
O
r^
r^
VO
CM
Oi
^ (
^r
r~~
r~-
r-~
kO
oo
CO
ir>
co
CO
OO
i/i
r>-
oo
^t-
r^
^3-
00
r^
uo
CO
uo
VO
OO
3
Q
c
^3-
CM
vo
CTI
m
"=*
CO
CM
CO
r~~.
o
1—
o
_J
+j
CM
CM
Ll_
—
•—
C
S-
co
UO
uo
co
r^
CM
LT)
lO
co
o
ID
o
o
co
:3
or
v»-
CTl
o
CM
CO
00
uo
CTi
CM
^t
CM
r-~
+->
DC
cy
(O
CM
CO
o
CO
CO
r-^
UO
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
. ,
t t
<3"
i —
^3-
r^-
00
r-^
<X3
O
O
O
o
O
CO
00
in
1^
^j-
"=*
co
o
UO
CTI
VO
r^.
c c
o
c
co
CTl
IT)
00
r^
r-^
o o
+-> </)
(O S-
cr> cu
1—
_1
o
■—
CO
CO
—
^
i- >
o
U0
O
O
o
UO
O
O
o
O
o
O
o
S- -i-
CM
U0
CO
CO
CTi
O
VO
S- Q
t-
CM
CO
1 —
O
■d"
^J-
CM
CTI
VO
o-
fO
'
'
CM
CO
r^
uo
CM
CM
c
o
LU
CO
CM
CM
UO
CTi
CO
CTi
CM
CTl
to
OO
C/l
m
IT)
<3"
CO
VO
CTl
uo
ID
r-^
r^
ID
CM
CO
LD
S-
Q
c:
r^
<3"
CM
*d-
VO
U3
CO
r^
CO
CO
r-^
ID
o
cu
>
o
co
>>
uo
LO
LO
uo
UO
UO
LD
uo
uo
m
uo
m
o
OO
LD
LT)
U0
uo
1X0
LO
UO
uo
uo
m
m
uo
VO
*d-
s_
UJ
(+-
CTl
CTl
CTl
CTI
CTi
CTl
CTl
CTi
oo
CTl
oo
en
<*
LU
cr
fd
<£
U0
*d-
1 —
O
O
CM
CTi
CO
■=a-
oo
ID
en
1—
a)
VO
LO
uo
CM
UO
CM
VO
r^
00
CM
■=t
VO
CM
*. — *
OO
c
CM
r~~
00
CM
*3-
CM
CO
O
CO
r^
■ —
<*
■=3-
CO
Q
o
CD
(0
I—
_J
+j
1^
CTl
CM
uo
>X>
^f
•3-
CO
O
o
co
oo
VO
CM
00
O
1 —
vo
O
CD
UO
UO
CM
CM
i —
ID
oo
r-^
CM
03
Q
co
^
CO
r-~
CO
UO
CTl
r^
r~^
00
r~.
>
I—
en
E
uo
co
CO
UO
UO
UD
uo
ID
ID
uo
*d-
CO
+J
CO
CO
CTl
LT>
CTl
CTl
CO
r^
CO
i —
*3"
vo
CO
o
CO
CTl
r~-
CO
LO
^a-
UO
co
"3-
*3-
CO
«*
r~~
^— -s
h-
,- — *.
00
CTl
co
CM
CO
ID
«d-
*3-
ID
ID
r-^
co
i~»
1—
4-
• — "
o-
m
1 —
CO
CTi
■=a-
r-~
co
uo
r^
■z*
1 —
CM
co
i —
W
CM
VO
CTl
CM
CM
"
CM
CM
VO
,
.c
<T3
+->
CU
>>
+->
3
a
S-
>1
c
CD
Q.
+->
>
O
c
J3
S-
C
o
Q.
(0
3
3
13
0)
o
o
<1J
(0
CU
(O
C
s:
=£
s:
•S
■"D
<:
O0
o
z:
Q
■"D
u.
s:
<C
58
Column 5. Energy Diversion, Salt. The amount of salt dissolved in the
water diverted for energy, obtained from equation 3 by multiplying column 4
x column x 0.00136.
Column 6. Irrigation Diversion, Water. The amount of water diverted for
irrigation during the month, given from the level of development assumed.
Column 7. Irrigation Diversion, Salt. The amount of salt dissolved in
the water diverted for irrigation, obtained from equation 3 by multiplying
column 6 x column 2 x 0.00136.
Column 8. Return Flow, Water. The amount of return flow that appears in
the stream during the month. It was assumed that energy diversions would pro-
duce no return flow and that one-third of irrigation diversions and one-half
of municipal diversions would eventually return to the stream. Return flow
is allocated according to the following percentages of the total annual return
flow, beginning with April: 4, 11, 14, 18, 18, 10, 8, 5, 4, 3, 2, 3 (Koch
1977). Therefore, the total annual return flow is one-third of 21 ,960--7,320.
Four percent, or 293, return in April; eleven percent, or 805, in May; and so
forth. Mo municipal diversions were made under the level of development il-
lustrated, but had there been a municipal diversion, one-half of the vearlv
total would have appeared as return flow, distributed in the same manner as
irrigation return flow. This assumption was made for ease of calculation.
Actually, most water used for domestic purposes will be returned to the stream
durinq the month it is diverted. Only that portion used for irriqation of
lawns, parks, and cemetaries will behave as irriqation return flow. In all
levels of development, however, municipal diversions were so small (less than
three percent of total diversions) that no further refinement was deemed nec-
essary.
Column 9. Return Flow, Salts. The salt load that will return to the
stream is unknown and varies from place to place. Ideally, return flow from
irrigation should remove, as a minimum, the salt contained in the applied
water. Otherwise salt will accumulate in the soil and eventually reduce
productivity. It is common where water is plentiful to over-irrigate, a
practice which often leaches naturally occurring salts from the soil. Under
the assumptions of this study, over-irrigation would not occur; thus, leach-
ing should not be excessive. For purposes of analysis, three levels of salt
pickup were considered: zero, one-half, and one ton per acre per year. The
total at the bottom of column 9 represents the dissolved salt in the irriga-
tion return flow. It is obtained by adding zero, one-half, or one ton per
acre times the number of acres irrigated to the salt in the applied water, the
total of column 7 (in the example, zero salt pickup is assumed). This load
was distributed monthly according to the distribution used for column 8. The
quality of irrigation return water can vary considerably throughout the year
in response to a multitude of factors: quantity of applied water, quality of
applied water, method of irrigating, type of soil, crop, growth stage, drain-
age system, and others. Normally, some return flow will percolate through
the soil and return as subsurface return flow, which is usually higher in dis-
solved salts than surface return flow. Obviously, return flows in the non-
irrigation months (November-March) will consist entirely of subsurface flows
and will have a higher concentration than return flows during the irrigation
months (April-October) when a portion of the return flow is surface. With
59
the low application rates assumed in this study (three af/acre), surface re-
turn flows will probably be small. It is likely that subsurface return flows,
which should exhibit more uniform concentrations, will predominate. There-
fore, no attempt was made to differentiate in quality between surface and
subsurface return flows. The value for April, for example, is simply four
percent of the annual total of 11,763 tons.
Column 10. Outflow, Salt. Salt load is obtained from equation 2: col-
umn 10 = column 3 - column 5 - column 7 + column 9. If municipal diversions
had been significant, they would be subtracted. Return flow from municipal
diversions would be added.
Column 11. Outflow, Water. The values of QN in the table were obtained
from equation 1: column 11 = column 1 - column 4 - column 6 + column 8; muni-
cipal diversions, if significant, would be handled as described in the pre-
vious paragraph. These illustrative calculations follow the logic of figure
2. Actually, however, values for CL were simulated by the hydrologic model
(refer to task 9, Water Model Calibration and River Basin Simulations for an
explanation of the model). Basically, the model used more refined techniques
to simulate water movement in the basin, so the resulting basin outflow was
used for C\. instead of the value from equation 1.
a
Column 12. TDS of Outflow (mg/1). The concentration of the basin out-
flow is obtained from equation 3: column 12 = column 10 f column 12 * 0.00136.
Adjustments for Storage
The procedure outlined above assumes that the historical relationship be-
tween TDS and Q will be preserved, subject only to the effects of diversions
and return flows under the various levels of development. Construction of a
dam, however, will alter the relationship between TDS and Q below the dam by
virtue of the storage and mixing that occurs within the reservoir. The effects
of an impoundment can be evaluated if the waters of the reservoir are suffi-
ciently mixed so that an assumption of complete mixing of inflow and storage
does not lead to large errors. If stratification occurs, the complete mixing
assumption is invalid, but the state of the art generally does not permit a
prediction of the stratification of planned reservoirs.
The simplest technique assumes that reservoir outflow during a given time
period is of constant quality. Further, it is assumed that inflow occurs in-
dependently of outflow and that reservoir quality is determined by both a salt
and water balance at the end of the time period. The reservoir lessens water
quality variations, with a slightly higher mean concentration (because of evap-
oration) .
The equations for the quality of reservoir water and discharge are given
below.
For water:
8) VR] = VRQ + V^ + P] - E] - V0]
60
where:
VR, = volume in reservoir (storage) at end of month 1
VR^ = volume in reservoir at end of month 0 (or at beginning of
month 1 )
VI, = volume of inflow to reservoir during month 1
P, = precipitation on reservoir during month 1
E, = evaporation from reservoir during month 1
VO, = volume of outflow during month 1
For salt:
9) (VR-,) (CR.,) - (VRQ) (CRQ) + (V^) (C^) - (VO^ (CO-,)
where:
VR, , VRn, VI,, and VO, are volumes described previously and CR, =
concentration of water in reservoir at end of month 1
CRn = concentration of water in reservoir at beginning of month 1
(end of month 0)
CI, = concentration of inflow during month 1
CO, = concentration of outflow during month 1
Note that precipitation and evaporation are assumed to have 0 concentrations.
In applying equations 8 and 9 all quantities must be known except the out-
flow (volume and quality) and final reservoir storage (volume and quality);
that is, VR, , CR-| , VO, , and CO,. The relationship between water quantities,
VR, and VO, ! will be determined by the operating rules for the reservoir, re-
sulting in three equations and four unknowns. The necessary fourth equation
is obtained by making an assumption regarding CR and CO. One approach is to
assume complete mixing of reservoir contents before outflow occurs, or CR-j
equals CO]. Combining this assumption with equations 8 and 9 yields the
following:
(VRQ CRQ) + (VI^ (C^)
10) C01 = VR1 + V^ + P1 - E1
The analysis is repeated for successive months until the quality routing is
completed. Other assumptions involving CR and CO are possible, such as aver-
aging inflow and outflow quality at the beginning and end of each month and
using an iterative process, but equation 10 was used in this analysis.
61
The historical relationship between TDS and Q is used to obtain inflow
quality ( C1 1 ) from inflow quantity (VI]) VI-j . The other quantities were avail-
able from the hydrologic simulations. Equation 10 was used to obtain the qual-
ity of reservoir outflow (COi), which became the basis for the calculations
outlined in figure 2. In effect, the quantities of water and salt represented
by V0-| and CO] replace Qj and LTDSj in equations 1 and 2. Thereafter, calcul-
ations proceed as described previously.
Adjustments for Upstream Changes in Water Quality
The historical relationship between TDS and Q at a given point in a
river can be altered also by changes in diversion patterns upstream. Sub-
stantial diversions for irrigation above Miles City, for example, would in-
crease TDS concentrations and render invalid the equation based on historical
records of TDS and Q at Sidney. Therefore, calculations for the two subbasins
with major new upstream diversions, the mid-Yellowstone and lower Yellowstone,
required significant modifications to the basic procedure described previously.
Essentially, such modifications consist of adding the increased salt
produced by diversions above the subbasin in question to the salt load at the
mouth of the subbasin calculated assuming no change in the TDS-Q relationship.
The procedure is demonstrated by the following example for the mid-Yellowstone
subbasin.
1) First, the procedure outlined in figure 2 using the regression
equation between TDS and Q to obtain the initial TDS was followed
to produce simulated Q and TDS values. These values reflect only
the effect of diversions within the subbasin.
2) The flow at Miles City essentially is the sum of discharges from
two other subbasins, the upper Yellowstone and the Bighorn.
Therefore, adjustments to the TDS values from step 1 were based
on the difference in TDS (for the two upper subbasins) between
historical and simulated TDS concentrations for identical dis-
charges. For example, from step 1, Q and TDS for the Yellowstone
at Miles City during August 1954 would be 215,827 af and 673 mg/1 ,
respectively for the high level of development. During the same
month, the discharge from the Bighorn would be 31,549 af. His-
torically, the Bighorn flow of 31,549 af in August would produce
a TDS of 475 mg/1; under the high level of development, however,
TDS would increase to 564 mg/1. Therefore, the Bighorn would
contribute, under the high level of development, 31,549 x (564 -
475) x .00136 = 3,819 more tons of salt than it would naturally
(1 mg/1 = 0.00136 tons/af). Similarly, the upper Yellowstone
would contribute 204,654 af of water with a concentration 1.5
mg/1 higher than naturally, or 204,654 x 1.5 x .00136 = 418 tons
more. Of the August 1954 flow of the mid-Yellowstone, 4.8 percent
would be diverted for energy use which has no return flow. Thus,
only 95.2 percent of the additional salt would leave the subbasin
at Miles City. Consequently, .952 (3,819 + 418), or 4,034 tons
must be added to the salt load of the Yellowstone River at Miles
City during August 1954. The adjusted concentration would be
687, or 14 mg/1 (2 percent) higher than the value simulated, ig-
noring upstream effects.
62
ia the 'IpMwrttorte *Riveri S<x&i«i
INTRODUCTION
Many diverse and complex phenomena, both natural and man-caused, influence
water quality in streams of the Yellowstone River Basin. The major water qual-
ity problems are associated with man's activities. Those described in this
section include mining, coal-fired power plants, synthetic fuel plants, slurry
pipelines, municipalities and industries, agriculture, and construction. Also
discussed are methods of alleviating water pollution resulting from these acti-
vities. Treatment systems are well established for some pollutants, such as
domestic waste; control methodologies are not well defined for other pollutants,
such as nonpoint wastes and effluents from synthetic fuel plants. Acceptable
and potentially acceptable techniques for treating or controlling wastewaters
are described.
MINING
Large-scale surface mining of coal in the northern Great Plains is a rather
recent development. Consequently, the long-term effects of surface mining on
the environment, including water quality, have not been fully documented. The
NGPRP (1974) study included a general discussion of water quality impacts asso-
ciated with coal mining. Van Voast (1974), Van Voast et al . (1975), Hodder
(1976), Pollhopf and Majerus (1975), and Van Voast and Hedges (1975, 1976), have
reported results of research on the effect of Montana strip mining on water qual-
ity, but few data are available on water quality after strip mining ceases. On-
site water pollution problems of Montana mines are categorized and discussed
below.
DRAINAGE WATER
In many cases coal beds are aquifers. Removal of the coal results in an
accumulation of water in the pit being mined, necessitating its drainage. Al-
though water occurring naturally in the coal bed may be of potable quality,
activities resulting from mining can contaminate the water with silt, coal fires,
oil and grease from machinery, nitrates from blasting agents, and sulfurous or
other compounds, including undesirable trace elements dissolved from the coal or
overburden. Discharge of pit water would require a permit from the Montana DHES.
The discharge permit would specify allowable levels of contaminants in the ef-
fluent. Treatment may be required in order for the effluent to meet the criteria
specified in the permit. Often pit water will be stored and used for dust
control .
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
Strip mining severely disturbs the surface of the ground not only in the
mining area, but also in the provision of ancillary facilities such as roads,
buildings, parking lots, water control structures, crushing and screening
63
facilities, and loading areas. Any surface disturbance increases the erosion
potential and changes the quality of runoff. Montana law requires that during
active mining, sedimentation basins be constructed to contain sediment within
mine boundaries.
Proper grading, reappl ication of top soil, and establishment of vegetation
will minimize erosion and sedimentation after mining ceases. The Bureau of
Land Management (1975) estimates that at the Otter Creek Coalfield, annual sed-
iment yield of the overburden after the soils and perennial vegetation have
stabilized will be approximately the same as before mining, but sediment yields
will be approximately doubled during the five-to-ten-year reclamation period.
The maximum potential for erosion occurs immediately after grading and before
vegetation has developed a root system. If seeding is done in the spring, it
coincides with the period of intense thunderstorms, which, combined with vulner-
able soils, can produce substantial erosion. Such an event in May 1976 at
Western Energy Company's mine near Col strip severely eroded a newly planted
reclamation site and filled a settling pond. The automatic discharge device
for the pond failed to operate, necessitating the release of sediment-laden
water into a tributary of Rosebud Creek (Schmidt 1976).
Thus, prevention of water pollution by surface runoff depends to a large
extent on the success of reclamation. If reclamation is successful in retaining
rainfall on the soil, runoff and erosion will be reduced accordingly. Jensen
(1975) describes a project to maximize moisture retention by mechanically mani-
pulating the surface to create depressions which reduce surface runoff and im-
prove plant growth. Success of that project and others led Hodder (1976) to
conclude that "in general, water pollution problems associated with mining in
Montana have been minimal as far as surface water is concerned."
LEACHING
Over geologic time, natural drainage systems have developed within soil and
rocks overlying coal beds. Strip mining entails removal and stockpiling of this
overburden and the destruction of those drainage systems. After mining, the
overburden is replaced prior to grading, topsoiling, and revegetation. The re-
sultant drainage pattern, both surface and subsurface, will differ considerably
from the old, due to the general lowering of the ground surface, elimination of
the coal seam (which might have been an aquifer), and refilling the pit with a
heterogeneous mixture of soil, rock, and waste coal--which may become a new ■
aquifer.
Consequently, overburden material which was in contact with water infre-
quently or not at all before mining, may be used to refill the void left by
removal of the coal seam. This material may become saturated and thus contin-
uously exposed to the water's persistent solvent action. Therefore, after min-
ing and reclamation are completed, groundwater in the spoil areas could be more
highly mineralized than water in nearby undisturbed aquifers. This has been
documented by Van Voast and Hedges (1975) for the Rosebud Mine near Col strip.
But, they point out, although ". . . alterations of groundwater quality will
occur within the downgradient from mined and reclaimed areas . . . the simple
acknowledgement of hydrologic effects has little meaning without establishment
of their significance."
64
The crux of the matter is the significance of changes in groundwater qual-
ity caused by strip mining: the degree to which such changes would be detri-
mental to the aquifer, whether toxic elements would travel downgrade and render
the water a health hazard for humans and livestock, whether undesirable chemi-
cals would discharge via the groundwater into a stream and adversely affect
fish and aquatic life, wildlife, and beneficial uses of the stream's water,
whether water quality in the spoils would improve or deteriorate with time, and
whether effects would be localized or contaminate entire aquifers downstream of
the mine. These and similar questions can be answered only with time and con-
siderable field data. Also, answers valid for one site may not be valid at
another because of differences in geology, hydrology, precipitation, and other
physical and chemical factors.
Van Voast and Hedges (1976) have summarized hydrogeologic conditions near
Colstrip for areas undisturbed by mining, areas currently being mined, and areas
that were mined and abandoned or reclaimed. Among their observations are the
fol lowing:
1. Water quality data "exemplify the striking lack of uniformity
or predictability of groundwater quality in the Colstrip area."
Water quality varied widely at different locations and depths,
even within the same aquifer. Spoils in younger parts of the
mined area contain waters that are chemically similar to waters
from undisturbed aquifers, but water from older spoils is more
mineralized than water in nearby undisturbed aquifers.
2. "Occurrences and concentrations of trace elements in mine-area
waters are sporadic and do not relate definitely to past mining
operations. "
3. "Chemical qualities of active-mine effluents will be similar to
those of other area waters; dissolved solids concentrations
will range between 500 and 3,000 mg/1 . Leachates from spoils
will probably have dissolved solids concentrations ranging between
1,000 and 5,000 mg/1, of which the principal constituents will be
magnesium and sulfate, and the general quality of groundwater in
the mined areas will ultimately alter to become more representa-
tive of waters in other non-coal aquifers."
Van Voast and Hedges (1975), through research on areas before, during, and
after strip mining and with the development of simulation techniques believe
that potential hydrologic effects (including water quality) of "future mine
operations will become predictable." In the interim, the safe approach re-
quires thorough monitoring of groundwater quality downgrade from active and
reclaimed mining areas in order to detect significant changes in undesirable
or potentially toxic substances before they reach hazardous levels.
MISCELLANEOUS
Several other activities at a mine have the potential to contribute to
water pollution, including the following:
65
Sanitary Facilities
Wastewaters from showers, washrooms, bathrooms, cooking and eating facili-
ties, and cleaning operations should present no unusual difficulties if proper
treatment and disposal systems, e.g., lagoons or septic tanks, are used.
Equipment Wastes
Equipment maintenance requires the handling of a variety of substances, in-
cluding fuels, lubricants, and antifreeze, which, along with detergents used in
cleaning operations, are potential pollutants. Disposal sites for these wastes
should be located where the threat of water pollution is minimal.
Air-borne Wastes
Water pollution can result from air-borne contaminants such as soil and
coal dust from construction, haul roads, crushing and loading, wind erosion,
and chemicals emitted from diesel and gasoline engines.
Coal Washing
Although no mines in Montana presently wash the coal before loading, it
may become necessary in the future at existing or new mines. If so, additional
water would be required by the mine and another wastewater stream would be
created. It is likely that wash water would be recycled to avoid a discharge,
and that solid material washed from the coal would be evaporative-dried and
eventually buried.
CONTROL OF WASTEWATERS FROM MINING
Mining techniques to minimize water pollution are described by Persse (1975)
Possible methods of controlling water pollution at strip mines include the fol-
lowing:
1. Water collected in the pits can be pumped to storage basins
where settleable solids will be deposited. If the decantate
is of sufficient quality, it can be discharged; otherwise, it
must be treated or stored until evaporated. Often pit water
will be used for dust control or irrigation of reclaimed land.
2. Diversion channels can be constructed to direct surface run-
off away from the highly erodible spoil piles.
3. Sediment basins can be formed to collect internal surface
runoff from spoil piles and thus prevent sediment from leaving
the mine area. If necessary for flood control or to prevent
surface runoff from polluting streams below the mine, the
sediment-control basins could be expanded to act as storage
reservoirs during the period of active mining.
66
4. Reclamation can be designed to retain precipitation on-site
to be used by vegetation, and thereby minimize surface run-
off.
5. Known toxic spoil material can be buried between impervious
layers or otherwise separated from contact with water.
6. Waste oil and other substances resulting from equipment
maintenance can be stored in leak-proof containers for pos-
sible recycling, or disposed of in a manner to prevent
water pollution, such as oiling roads or placing in imper-
vious landfills.
7. Properly designed and operated septic tank systems or
lagoons can be used for treatment of sanitary waste.
POWER PLANTS
A modern coal-fired electric generating plant burns coal in a boiler to
produce high temperature and high-pressure steam, which passes through a tur-
bine where the thermal energy of the steam is converted to rotating mechanical
energy. The turbine transfers energy to the generator, which produces electri-
cal energy. After turning the turbine, the steam enters the condenser, where
energy is transferred to the cooling fluid, and the steam reverts to the liquid
phase. This last step produces very low pressure on the outlet side of the tur-
bine, necessary for efficient operation of the plant. The lower the outlet
pressure, the higher the efficiency; the more heat absorbed by the cooling fluid,
the lower the pressure will be; and the lower the temperature of the cooling
fluid, the more heat will be absorbed.
Due to inefficiencies in the conversion processes, energy is lost at each
step in the process. The laws of thermodynamics limit the overall efficiency
of a coal-fired plant to approximately 40 percent. Hence, each kilowatt hour
(KWH) of electricity (one KWH is 3,413 BTU's) requires a "heat rate" of 3,413 i
.40, or 8,533 BTU's. Some energy, approximately ten percent, enters the atmo-
sphere through the smokestacks. Another five percent is lost within the plant.
So the heat that must be rejected to the cooling system is equal to .85 x 8,533 -
3,413, or 3,840 BTU/KWH, which represents 45 percent of the energy obtained from
burning the coal. Thus, for each 100 units of energy introduced into the plant,
40 leave as electricity, ten go up the smokestack, five are lost within the
plant, and 45 are rejected to the cooling system.
Two fluids are used to absorb the heat rejected in the condenser: water
and air. Presently, only one plant in the United States— the 30 MW Wyodak unit
in northeastern Wyoming— uses air as the cooling medium in dry cooling towers.
All others require water. Although power plants use water for other purposes
such as boiler feedwater to supply the stream, in ash handling and stack gas
cleaning, and service water for drinking, cleaning, and sanitary purposes, more
than 95 percent of the water requirement in a wet system is for cooling.
The advantages and disadvantages of various cooling devices are discussed
by Thomas (1975) and Moseley (1974). For the northern Great Plains, estimated
67
net consumption would range from approximately seven af/y per megawatt capacity
for once-through cooling to up to twenty-one af/y per megawatt capacity for
spray ponds. Dry or hybrid systems (devices which use both air and water as
cooling mediums) theoretically could be designed to use little or no water.
However, no such systems have been built in the United States for large power
plants.
Closed-cycle wet cooling systems are designed to alleviate thermal pollution
associated with once-through cooling. However, use of these devices does not en-
tirely eliminate environmental problems. Fogging, drift, icing, and steam plumes
may occur downwind. In addition to cooling, water is used for several other im-
portant functions in a coal -fired power plant. Each of these functions can con-
tribute its own characteristic waste. Sanitary wastes are not unique to a power
plant so they will not be discussed. More important are the wastes from: (1) the
condenser cooling system, (2) boiler feedwater treatment operations, (3) plant
system cleaning water, (4) exhaust gas treatment system, and (5) solid waste
handling system.
Where once-through cooling is not possible, auxiliary offstream cooling de-
vices such as cooling towers and ponds are required. Since these devices, with
the exception of dry towers, rely primarily on evaporation for cooling, total
dissolved solids gradually become more concentrated and can lead to precipitation
of solids inside the condenser. Calcium sulfate and calcium carbonate are often
the controlling compounds; thus, recirculating water must stay below their solu-
bility limits. Clogging also may result from silica, iron, and silt in the
cool ing water.
Therefore, chemicals routinely are added to recirculating water cooling
systems to prevent clogging, scaling, and biological growth in the condenser.
Boies et al . (1973) discuss the various methods employed to control these poten-
tial problems. Chemicals used include alum, ferric chloride, or sodium alum-
inate (for coagulation), lime (for softening), acid (to control pH), zinc-
chromate-phosphate inhibitors (for corrosion prevention), phosphonate compounds
and various polymers (for scale prevention), and chlorine and biocides (for
control of biological growth). Water treated with these chemicals is flushed
periodically through the condenser and subsequently removed from the cooling
system. This "blowdown" can be heavily contaminated with TDS and suspended
solids, plus residues of the chemicals added to the water. Similar wastes are
released from the boiler feedwater treatment system and from boiler blowdown.
Without extensive treatment, blowdown could not be discharged into Montana
streams. It is likely that blowdown would be placed in ponds constructed to
prevent outflows and seepage. Water would evaporate, theoretically leaving the
impurities in permanent storage.
Flue gas desulfurization systems based on the use of lime or limestone nec-
essitate the disposal of large quantities of sludge. Ponding and landfill ing
currently provide the major means for disposal of these sludges. This sludge
is a potential source of both surface and groundwater pollution, depending upon
the characteristics of the waste and the disposal site. Potential water pollu-
tion problems are the following:
68
1) soluble toxic species; e.g., heavy metals;
2) chemical oxygen demand;
3) excessive total dissolved solids;
4) excessive levels of specific species; e.g., sulfate and chloride; and
5) excessive suspended solids.
Bottom ash is usually transported by water to settling ponds. The water
can evaporate, seep into the groundwater, or be discharged into a stream. The
decantate has a high pH and a high concentration of TDS (approximately 5,000
mg/1). In addition, it is expected that trace quantities of arsenic, barium,
copper, iron, mercury, lead, and other elements will be present in solution or
in suspension in the decanted water.
It is anticipated that the sludge generated from wet scrubbing processes
and the bottom ash will be stored in ponds or used in landfill. For coal of
one percent sulfur content and ten percent ash (typical Montana coal), the vol-
umes of sludge and ash will be approximately 35 and 215 tons of dry solids per
megawatt per year (Casper 1975). With average dry densities of 42 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf) for scrubber sludge and 85 pcf for ash, a 1,000 MW plant would
produce more than 200 af of dry solids per year. Ash is relatively easy to de-
water but sludge is not. Therefore, the solids probably would require a volume
of 400-500 af/y for storage.
Waters used to transport this material, as well as other wastewater from a
power plant, obviously have the potential to degrade receiving waters and dis-
rupt aquatic life. Under Montana regulations, discharges of sludges and water
from sludges to waters of the state generally would not be allowed. It is lik-
ely that such waste, as well as blowdown, will be stored in large ponds from
which the water will evaporate. The solids would be stored in the ponds or
buried in the stripmine pits during reclamation.
Although it is relatively easy to prevent surface outflow from storage
ponds, seepage into the groundwater can be eliminated only by careful construc-
tion of concrete or membrane linings. The cost would be substantial. Evidence
to support a zero-seepage requirement is lacking at present. Col strip Unit 1
will be intensively monitored to detect undesirable seepage from storage ponds.
If seepage threatens to contaminate the groundwater, remedial measures can be
required by the Montana DHES.
Possible adverse effects of stack emissions from large coal-fired power
plants in the northern Great Plains have yet to be monitored and quantified.
The environmental impact statement on Colstrip Units 3 and 4 (Montana DNRC 1974)
concluded that stack emissions probably would damage vegetation but that ". . .
acid production from sulfur dioxide emitted from Colstrip Units 1, 2, 3, and 4
would not create significant pH changes in nearby streams. . ." and that, with
respect to lead, mercury, and fluoride, "... there appears to be no reason to
assume that adverse concentrations of these elements will occur in streams of
the area. "
The cumulative effect of numerous power plants the size of the Colstrip
units and synthetic fuel facilities may not be negligible, however. Trace ele-
ments from many coal -conversion installations could lead to the accumulation of
toxic materials in the watershed and adversely affect water quality, particularly
69
in lakes and reservoirs. As with pollutants from ashes, blowdown, and overbur-
den, the logical approach is to systematically monitor affected waters near
existing installations in order to detect significant changes in important trace
elements before concentrations reach unacceptable levels. Such information also
will provide data that can be used to predict the effects of future projects on
water quality.
SYNTHETIC FUEL PLANTS
Basically, the conversion of coal into oil or gas consists of adding hydro-
gen to coal. Water (as steam) is the source of hydrogen. Every conversion pro-
cess, of which there are several (Mudge et al . 1974, Battel la 1974, Chopey 1974,
Probstein et al . 1974), must involve a gasification step in which coal reacts
with steam to produce a synthesis gas that can be modified with more steam to
obtain more of the hydrogen needed to convert coal into oil and hydrocarbon
gas (Cochran 1976).
In addition to processing, water is used for cooling, generating steam
energy, ash handling, sanitary purposes, and flushing of the cooling system.
Water requirements are expected to range from 5,000 to 10,000 af/y for a 250
million standard cubic-foot-per-day gasification plant (Thomas 1975) up to 29,000
af/y for a 100,000-barrel-per-day synthetic crude oil facility (Dickinson 1974).
The synthetic crude plant would consume 18 million tons of coal per year; the
gasification plant, 7.6 million. A coal conversion complex could produce a
combination of pipeline quality gas, synthetic, crude oil, low-sulfur fuel oils,
solid char, solvent refined coal, and various byproducts. Water requirements
of a specific facility would depend on many factors, including the processes used
in converting coal to other products, the mix of oils and gas produced, moisture
content of the raw coal, degree of water recycling, and type of cooling system
used.
Synthetic fuel facilities ideally will recycle all water until it is con-
sumed (Beychok 1975, SERNC0 1974, USDI 1974). Thus, there should be no waste-
water discharge. Rubin and McMichael (1975), however, believe that it "is often
technically or economically infeasible to recycle all wastewaters consumptively."
Table 21 identifies the quantity and nature of major wastewater streams within
a 270 million standard cubic-foot-per-day gasification plant proposed for Wyoming
(SERNC0 1974). Because of water's great solvent ability, the composition of
process waters will be complex and contain small amounts of practically all com-
pounds in the coal, in addition to the contaminants shown in table 21 . Lique-
faction processes will produce wastes of similar quality.
Such wastewaters could not be discharged to Montana streams under existing
statutes and rules. Therefore, water not evaporated or incorporated into fuel
products will accompany solid wastes and brines leaving the plant. The liquid
portion will eventually evaporate or seep into the ground. The remaining solid
material — ashes, sludges, and other wastes--will be permanently stored in
sealed ponds or buried. The pollution potential of these wastes is similar to
that of power plant wastes.
70
TABLE 21. Quantity and nature of major wastewater streams from 270 x 10
SCF/day plant proposed for Wyoming.
Source
Design
Quantity
gpma
Nature
Major phenosolvan effluent 2,947
Minor phenosolvan effluent 1,097
Oily sewer 180
Sanitary waste 19
Storm and fire 67
Selected blowdowns 327
Rich in NH3, H2S, and low-
boiling organics
Rich in high-boiling organics,
fatty acids, ammonia, coal dust,
and total dissolved solids
Oily with suspended solids
Like municipal sewage
Oily with suspended solids
Clean with moderate total dis-
solved solids
SOURCE: SERNCO (1974;
Gallons per minute.
CONTROL OF WASTEWATERS FROM COAL-CONVERSION FACILITIES
The conversion of coal into electricity, substitute natural gas, synthetic
crude oil, and other gaseous and liquid products results in a variety of pol-
lutants detrimental to water quality. Potential problem areas are: (1) heat
from cooling devices, (2) blowdown, (3) process wastewaters, and (4) solid
waste. Methods of controlling these wastes to prevent water pollution are des-
cribed below.
Heat From Cooling Devices
Approximately two-thirds of the energy content of coal is rejected to the
environment in a coal -fired power plant; a synthetic fuel plant rejects approx-
imately one-third. This lost energy is ultimately transferred to the atmosphere,
directly or through evaporation of cooling water. Under current Montana regu-
lations, little heated water could be discharged into a stream. Therefore,
closed-cycle wet cooling devices; e.g., cooling ponds or evaporative towers,
dry (air-cooled) towers, or hybrid (wet-dry) devices would be required for energy
conversion facilities in Montana. Consequently, no direct thermal addition to
streams should occur.
71
Blowdown
The following methods have been used to handle blowdown from large cooling
towers (Boico et al . 1973): (1) discharge directly to receiving waters,
(2) treatment and discharge, and (3) evaporation or treatment for reuse (zero-
discharge) .
The quality of blowdown can be controlled somewhat through the use of cor-
rosion resistant pipes, pretreatment of recirculating water, the use of physical
(brushes or balls to mechanically scrape the interior of pipes) rather than
chemical means to remove scale, and other methods. It is highly unlikely that
any blowdown, however, could be legally discharged directly into Montana streams.
Consequently, treatment of blowdown before discharge or complete use (zero-
discharge) are more probable solutions.
Treatment would have to remove suspended sediment, chlorine residual, and
any other objectionable constituent, and cool the blowdown to approximately the
temperature of the receiving streams. Settling ponds can achieve much of the
required treatment, but the effluent still may contain traces of pollutants.
Therefore, to avoid expensive additional treatment and in order to utilize water
fully in semiarid areas, it is probable that blowdown ultimately will be stored
in ponds, perhaps with ashes and sludges, where the water will evaporate, leav-
ing only a solid residue to be handled. The blowdown could be recycled several
times or combined with other waste streams or cooling water before final storage.
Process Wastewaters
Characteristics of wastewater streams in a gasification plant are given in
table 21. Rubin and McMichael (1975) list similar waste for other coal conver-
sion processes and state that "... coal process waters have an inorganic com-
position as saline as seawater with the addition of small amounts of practically
all the organic compounds found in coal." Since there are more than two dozen
technically feasible gasification systems and more than a dozen liquefaction
processes, the mix of pollutants in wastewater streams from a synthetic fuel
plant depends upon the process employed, as well as the composition of the coal
and the quality of the raw water supply.
Effluent standards for synthetic fuel plants have not been established be-
cause no commercial plants are operating in the United States. In view of the
goal of no discharge of pollutants by 1985, the need for water conservation in
semiarid regions, and the difficulty of treating wastewaters from coal conver-
sion facilities, it is probable that energy plants proposed for Montana will
have no discharge of effluent wastewater. Water not evaporated or converted
to fuel ultimately will be buried with wet ash and sludge in the strip mine
pits or stored in ponds. Ramifications of subsurface disposal of such wastes
are discussed in the section entitled "Impacts of Water Withdrawals."
Solid Waste
Solid waste from coal conversion processes consists of bottom ash from the
boiler, fly ash, ash from gasifiers, refuse from coal preparation, sludges from
72
scrubber systems, sludges from water treatment, organic waste from domestic
sewage, and dissolved and suspended solids contained in the various wastewater
streams that transport or are combined with the ashes and sludges. Solid waste
production, including the moisture contained in the material, will range from
less than 1,000 tons per day from a 1,000 MW power plant up to 3,500-6,000 tons
per day from a 250 MM SCFD gasification complex (SERNC0 1974, Beychak 1975).
Liquefaction wastes should be comparable to those from gasification. The fol-
lowing methods can be used to handle these solid wastes:
1) burial of coarse wastes (principally ashes) in strip mine pits
under six to ten feet of overburden; and
2) storage of fine materials in storage ponds which would be buried
permanently after completion of the project, or periodic removal
and burial of the solids in the pits.
There is legitimate concern that seepage from ponds or infiltration of water
through the buried wastes will contaminate the groundwater reservoir. Although
according to Persse (1975), "To date, there is no evidence to substantiate this
concept," table 22 indicates that the wastewaters from the power plant at Col-
strip contain trace elements which could adversely affect groundwater quality.
Consequently, it would be advisable to permanently isolate these wastes from
the groundwater. Isolation could be accomplished by burial above the water
table, on top of an impervious layer of clay or other lining, and under several
feet of overburden. Only additional field monitoring can determine if the
threat to groundwater quality is sufficient to justify the extra cost of pro-
viding permanent segregation where natural geologic formations fail to do so.
The EPA (1976) points out that permanent storage of solid and initially
liquid wastes in holding ponds is not without peril. Effluents are concen-
trated substantially during storage. Accidental release, perhaps as a result
of earthquakes, flash floods, or structural failure, would produce acute ef-
fects, as opposed to chronic effects of a small continuous discharge. The fate
of storage sites after termination of the project requires attention also.
Perhaps imbankments and impermeable membranes can be maintained during the
active life of an energy-conversion facility, but there remains the question
of who will be responsible for them when the plant is abandoned after producing
30 to 40 years' volume of wastes.
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
Increased mining and transportation of coal and the construction and oper-
ation of coal -conversion complexes and other facilities related to mining will
initiate an influx of people into eastern Montana. This increase in population
will burden the region with additional domestic waste. The chief pollutants
in domestic wastewater are pathogens, organic matter, and nutrients. The organic
material--dissol ved, suspended, and settleable--can become foodstuff for the
complex interdependent system of plant and animal life in receiving waters. If
sufficient oxygen is present, the end products will be stable forms of carbon,
nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus.
73
JX CJ •—
s- o
o ^ o ^o
4J OJ o o
' r— <u ■*-*.
i O) > o
I E O r-
o 2 o .—
030.—
"O i- "O CO
+j ro
■M JZ . —
O iflN
CQ <C LTJ
E O r^
O Q_ \
+-> O
TO -o o
>^ c —
1— o \
. CM .— *3" •— CO * <
O O •— ^uiO>- OOi
1— O • CO O O 1
IOOOO
ON WCO ^TJ CO CO irnO N 1
■ CM CNJ •— r- •
■ ■ r- CM CM >— 1—
■ O CM O t— • •—
VD CM O >— <— O l
O O O <=J"
n-r- .-in
IOOOO
» O •— O O
ro 1—
• CM
CO ro
• v£> O O CO O
I CM CO ro . — no-
1 KO <— «T CO ■
<o O o o o
O •— CM CM CM ■— •
LD •— • O O l
1 CO O O O 1— 1
J .— CM \0 .—
> CO vO ■ — O LD O ■
i O ^O O O O o
• O CM .— r-
* •— in *=T ko cm O 1
OO • CT* O <— • •— <
I r— • O *3" ■— CTi VO •
t O r- CO o 1
■OO •—O'
0; ZZ <_> O
; in <c o 0 -=c
o •■-••- -o
•— c: cm- I 0) on -^ z o -
■c:^ioO(/i< _iru<
IL-ZNUmCi
74
In the absence of oxygen, on the other hand, decomposition will be accom-
panied by unsightly scum, sludge, and offensive odors. Since natural streams
contain a limited quantity of dissolved oxygen (about 5-12 mg/1) and untreated
domestic wastes usually require 200 mg/1 or more of oxygen for decomposition,
a large dilution factor or extensive treatment before discharge is required to
prevent depletion of a stream's oxygen supply and the resultant destruction of
fish. The goal of modern treatment processes is to provide a favorable environ-
ment for the growth of organisms which will perform most of the decomposition
before the wastewater is discharged to the receiving waters.
Even with normal (secondary) treatment, however, the effluent will contain
nutrients, principally compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus, which can over-
fertilize plants in the water and cause unsightly algae blooms. Unchecked,
the result is premature aging of lakes and streams--a process called eutrophi-
cation. It brings changes in water quality, depletion of oxygen, and replace-
ment of desirable fish species with less desirable species. If eutrophication
is a serious threat, advanced treatment processes may be required to remove
the nutrients from wastewater.
Karp and Botz (1975) and Karp et al . (1975, 1976) have described thoroughly
the 46 existing wastewater treatment facilities in the Yellowstone Basin. The
low population density, availability of land, and the minimal maintenance re-
quirement have made lagoons the favored type of domestic wastewater treatment
facility. Most towns use multicell lagoon systems to treat their domestic waste-
water, although Billings has a complete mix activated sludge system and Living-
ston and Laurel have primary treatment plants. All towns that discharge from
their treatment systems are under the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (MPDES) permit program that placed them on a compliance schedule to meet
requirements of federal laws for secondary treatment by July 1, 1977. However,
the degradation of streams by municipal wastewater discharges is decreasing as
communities upgrade their treatment processes (Karp et al . 1975). The 208
plans will identify treatment systems that may require upgrading and expansion
as a result of anticipated population increases.
Localized problems may occur where: (1) population increases are so rapid
that existing facilities become overloaded before the community can expand its
treatment facilities, or (2) domestic waste from individual or clustered dwel-
lings (such as mobile home courts in unincorporated areas) may, because of
overloaded or improperly designed treatment systems, reach a watercourse.
Septic tank effluents also may have a significant impact on groundwater sys-
tems. Soil has a natural renovative capacity for septic tank effluent, but
where the density of septic tanks is high, this capacity may be exceeded, pol-
luting the groundwater system. Advance planning and strict enforcement of
existing zoning and sanitation laws can minimize these problems.
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
Karp and Botz (1975) and Karp et al . (1976) identified 25 industrial dis-
chargers in the basin, including three oil refineries, two coal-fired power
plants, two sugar refineries, and several miscellaneous industries such as meat
packing plants, oil well fields, and coal mines. All are under the MPDES permit
75
program and are following schedules to comply with requirements of the 1972
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (FWPCAA), which call for use
of the "best practical control technology" by 1977, "best available control
technology" by 1983, and "no discharge of pollutants" by 1985.
At present, industrial wastewaters are a decreasing or stable problem.
Water quality in the Laurel-Billings reach of the river, which receives wastes
from three oil refineries, one steam generating plant, two municipal waste-
water treatment plants, two water treatment plants, a sugar beet factory, two
meat packing plants (that pretreat wastewaters before discharging to the Bil-
lings wastewater treatment plant), and several storm drains, has improved
markedly in recent years as modern pollution control techniques have been
adopted by industries and by the City of Billings (Klarich 1976). Improvement
should continue in the future as industries further reduce their waste discharges
in response to deadlines established by the 1972 FWPCAA. Problems of new coal-
energy industries are described in previous sections.
CONTROL OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATERS
Under existing federal law all publically owned treatment works must have
employed the equivalent of secondary treatment by July 1, 1977, best practicable
waste treatment technology by 1983, and eliminate discharges of waste by 1985.
Karp et al . (1975, 1976) and Karp and Botz (1975) reviewed the performance of
all community-owned treatment works in the basin and concluded that: (1) the
degradation of streams by municipal wastewater is decreasing as treatment pro-
cesses are upgraded, and (2) the potential for correction of problem areas is
good; the principal need is for additional federal grant funding.
Several techniques are available to upgrade the effectiveness of the la-
goons serving the majority of communities in the basin. Methods include:
1) construction of sufficient capacity so that no discharge occurs
and all influent evaporates;
2) mechanical aeration to add oxygen to a system;
3) use of rock or intermittent sand filters to "polish" the effluent;
4) application of effluent to land;
5) addition of chemicals to aid in treatment; and
6) biological harvesting to control effluent solids and nutrients.
Further descriptions of these and other methods are given by Lewis and Smith
(1973) and Middlebrooks et al . (1974). Thus, municipalities in the basin should
be able to achieve secondary treatment as grant funds become available.
Industries, like municipalities, are under schedules established by the
1972 FWPCAA to reduce and eventually eliminate discharges of pollutants into
state waters. Substantial progress has been made through combinations of the
following practices:
76
1) modification of industrial processes to reduce the volume and
nature of wastewaters; e.g., recycling and inline treatment;
2) installation of more refined treatment processes to reduce
pollutants in the effluent; and
3) rerouting of industrial wastewaters, perhaps after pretreat-
ment, into municipal treatment systems.
The Yellowstone River's water quality has improved significantly in recent years
as municipalities and industries have adopted better methods of handling waste-
waters.
IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW
Salt is a product of geologic weathering. Precipitation and drainage trans-
port salt into streams and rivers and maintain the quantity of dissolved minerals
in the soil at levels which allow plant growth. Thus, through the ages, salt
from the watershed has been carried to the ocean by rivers. In changing from
natural vegetation to irrigated croplands, dissolved salts as well as water are
diverted to the land. If the salt is not removed the land eventually will be-
come too saline for continued agriculture. Therefore, sound agricultural prac-
tices dictate that a salt balance be maintained: all salt in the diverted water
must be returned to the stream. Since the river will have less water (some
having been consumed by evapotranspiration) , the concentration of salt will be
increased downstream of the irrigated area. Where excess water is applied to
the land or the soils contain excessive soluble salts, irrigation return flows
may dissolve additional salt and carry it into the stream, thereby forcing the
river to carry more salt with less water. Each successive diversion and irri-
gation cycle on a stream further increases the salt concentration. Irrigation
return flows also may deteriorate in quality through the presence of fertilizers,
pesticides, and suspended solids acquired during the irrigation cycle.
The effects of irrigation return flows on water quality have been well-
studied in many parts of the western United States (Utah State University Foun-
dation 1969, Scofield 1936, Pillsbury and Bloney 1966, Sylvester and Seabloom
1963, Eldridge 1960). Generally, research was directed at areas with the
greatest water quality problems, such as Imperial Valley, California and the
Colorado River Basin. Regions endowed with abundant high water quality, such
as the Yellowstone River, have received little attention from researchers;
consequently, possible effects of irrigation on water quality in the Yellow-
stone River have not been documented. The United States Bureau of Reclamation
(USBR) has completed some unpublished studies on irrigation return flow in the
Wyoming portion of the basin (Madsen 1975). Another USBR project has collected
extensive data on quantity and quality of diversions and return flows in the
Yellowstone Basin in both Wyoming and Montana, but final results are not yet
available (Manfredi 1976). The state WQB (1975) has collected and analyzed
water quality samples from miscellaneous irrigation return flows in the Yel-
lowstone Valley below Billings.
Data from the USBR projects and the state WQB indicate that salt concentra-
tion in the irrigation return flow may be several times higher than that of the
applied water. The USBR data, for example, revealed concentration factors (salt
77
concentration in irrigation return flow divided by salt concentration in ap-
plied water) ranging from 1.8 to 3.1 (Manfredi 1976) in surface return flows.
Returns identified as subsurface concentrated salts by a factor of 4.9.
These concentration factors result from two processes: (1) the extrac-
tion of essentially pure (nearly distilled) water by plants in their growth
processes, which concentrates the dissolved salts in the water remaining in
the soil, and (2) the leaching of additional salts ("salt pickup") by water
as it percolates through the soil. By measuring the volumes and TDS of di-
versions and return flows on an irrigated area, it is possible to compute the
salt pickup. Data from Madsen (1975) indicate that salt pickup ranged from
0.84 to 8.73 tons per acre per year in several USBR projects in Wyoming. In-
complete data from Manfredi (1976) reveal gross estimates of less than 0 (in-
dicating that salt is accumulating in the soil) up to one-half ton per acre
per year salt pickup in various portions of the Yellowstone Basin in Montana.
These estimates are somewhat low because: (1) most measurements were made on
surface return flows which have less opportunity to leach salts from the soil
profile than subsurface return flows, and (2) measurements were terminated in
early fall, whereas subsurface returns may continue for several months after
irrigation and surface returns cease.
Gross estimates of salt pickup between Billings and Sidney can be obtained
from table 2 3, which summarizes water and TDS discharges of the Yellowstone
River and major tributaries. For example, if the contributions from the Big-
horn, Tongue, and Powder rivers are subtracted, table 23 reveals that the area
along the mainstem of the Yellowstone between Billings and Sidney contributed
892,986 tons of salt and 228,010 net acre-feet of water to the river. These
TABLE 23.
Summary of salt and water discharges in the Yellowstone River Basin,
1944-1973.
Station
Water Discharge
Total
Dissol
ved Solids
(acre-feet)
(Tons
(mg/1)
Yellowstone River & Billings
5,276,494
1 ,306
,038
182
Bighorn River near Bighorn
2,596,214
2,076
,140
588
Yellowstone River near Miles City
8,240,640
4,169
,105
372
Tongue River at Miles City
289,151
178
533
454
Powder River near Locate
335,067
518
,121
1,137
Yellowstone River near Sidney
8,724,936
4,971
,818
419
NOTE: Values were measured or simulated based upon relationships developed
from measured data.
data suggest that the additional inflow (228,010) contained an average of 3.92
tons per acre-foot, or 2,880 mg/1. However, records of streams in eastern
Montana indicate that the TDS of surface runoff is about 1,200-1,300 mg/1.
Therefore, surface runoff could account for only 40 percent to 50 percent of
the salt increase. Assuming that 45 percent of the 892,986 tons result from
surface runoff, 491,142 tons can be attributed to other sources: groundwater
78
discharge, seeps, springs, and irrigation return flows. If all of it were at-
tributed to the 291,985 acres of irrigated land along the mainstem of the Yel-
lowstone, salt pickup would be 2.12 tons per acre.
Such a gross estimate, however, is somewhat misleading. Table 23 shows
that most of the increase in salt load occurs between Billings and Miles City.
Between Miles City and Sidney (adjusting for the higher salt loads contributed
by the Tongue and Powder rivers), the Yellowstone gains only 106,000 tons of
salt per year, but loses 140,000 acre-feet of water. Therefore, salt pickup
cannot be estimated for the Miles City-to-Sidney reach. One can conclude only
that: (1) the salt load generally increases between Billings and Sidney,
(2) irrigation along the mainstem of the Yellowstone contributes an average
salt pickup of no more than two tons per acre per year, and (3) the salt pick-
up varies between different parts of the basin; some irrigated lands may con-
tribute several tons per acre and others may remove salt and store it in the
soil .
Irrigation may also change the concentration of suspended solids, depending
upon TSS levels in the applied water, the method of applying the water, type of
soil, tillage methods, slope, type of drainage system, and similar factors.
Preliminary data from Manfredi (1976) indicate that TSS may be increased or de-
creased by the irrigation cycle. In some reaches of the Yellowstone, TSS of
surface return flow increased by a factor ranging from 1.1 to 4.9; in other
reaches or tributaries, TSS was actually lower in the surface return flow than
in the applied water. In subsurface returns, TSS should be low because of the
filtering action of the soil. Subsurface drainage in the lower Yellowstone
Basin averaged only 6 mg/1 TSS and 254 mg/1 in the applied water.
If it is assumed that new irrigation systems will be more efficient than
existing systems, surface return flow should be minimal. Most return flow will
reach the stream by deep percolation through the soil. Consequently, such re-
turn flows should be characterized by low concentrations of TSS but high con-
centrations of TDS. Sprinkler irrigation on slopes, however, could have the
opposite effect—significant surface return flows high in TSS and little sub-
surface return flow.
CONTROL OF WASTEWATER FROM IRRIGATION
The principal method employed to reduce salt pickup is to reduce the vol-
ume of subsurface return flows. Seepage losses can be reduced by lining canals
and laterals. Deep percolation losses can be reduced by improved irrigation
methods that minimize over-irrigation and uneven applications of water. Tile
drainage can be installed immediately below the root zone, thus intercepting
percolating waters before they have the opportunity to seep through subsurface
soils and dissolve additional salts. Highly mineralized return flows can be
conveyed to evaporation ponds. Similarly, silt-laden return flows could be
stored temporarily in a sediment basin to allow some of the silt to settle out
before the water is discharged. In an extreme case, irrigation return flows
could be treated with coagulants in holding ponds to remove suspended solids
or by desalinization facilities to reduce TDS. Treatment is expensive, however,
and is not usually practical. The practices most likely to reduce the adverse
79
effects of irrigation return flows in the Yellowstone Basin are those involving
better water management: lining of ditches, land leveling, converting to sprink-
ler irrigation, avoiding the over-application of water, and monitoring of soil
moisture.
NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
The Montana DHES discussed problems of nonpoint pollution in the Yellow-
stone River Basin in its Water Quality Inventory and Management Plans (Karp and
Botz 1975, Karp et al . 1975, 1976). Agriculture, runoff from urban areas, con-
struction projects, inadvertent spills, and natural phenomena were identified
as activities which contribute nonpoint pollution (table 24).
TABLE 24.
Nonpoint waste sources and characteristics in the Yellowstone
River Basin.
Activity
Waste Characteristics
Irrigation return flows
Runoff from pasture lands
Runoff from saline seep areas
Runoff from cultivated land
Storm drains and urban runoff
Construction projects, streambank
riprapping
Coal mining
Dissolved and suspended solids, pesti-
cides, nutrients, heat
Animal wastes, sediment
Salts, sediment
Fertilizers, pesticides, dissolved
salts, sediment
Oil and grease, coliforms, biological
oxidizable material, suspended solids,
toxicants
Sediment, equipment wastes
Dissolved and suspended solids, trace
elements, equipment waste
SOURCE: Karp and Botz (1975), Karp et al . (1975, 1976)
According to the Montana DHES, agricultural nonpoint discharge is the most
serious problem in the basin, followed by storm drains and urban runoff, con-
struction projects, accidental discharges, and natural nonpoint sources. Agri-
cultural runoff and runoff from saline seep areas are the most significant pro-
blems in the lower portion of the basin, particularly below Glendive.
Unfortunately, available data are not sufficient to quantify nonpoint pol-
lution from the individual sources. The cumulative effect, however, is reflected
in the gradual deterioration in water quality between Corwin Springs and Cart-
wright, North Dakota. Several recent and on-going projects will provide further
80
information on the nature and magnitude of nonpoint pollution problems in
Montana. Kaiser et al . (1975), in the first comprehensive report on saline
seep in Montana, listed 28,000 acres in the Yellowstone Basin affected by
saline seep and 24,700 additional acres with irrigation salinity problems.
One of their conclusions was that "some current land uses are creating sal-
inity problems, and, if left unaltered, will pose economic and environmental
problems to future generations." The environmental problems include salini-
zation of groundwater and streams.
Another report by the state WQB (Karp et al . , in preparation) identifies
and quantifies nonpoint sources in the Billings area. In addition, the 208
planning efforts by the mid-Yellowstone and Yellowstone-Tongue area planning
organizations (APO's) and by the state WQB on areas not covered by the regional
APO's are including nonpoint pollution as a major study item.
CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM NONPOINT SOURCES
Water pollution from nonpoint sources can be controlled by the use of ap-
propriate management practices. Some sections in this report describe tech-
niques applicable to irrigation return flows and surface mining of coal--two
major sources of nonpoint pollution. According to the EPA (1973), goals of
reducing water pollution from agricultural land may be achieved by containing
erosion at the source by means of effective conservation practices applied to
the land, and by applying fertilizers and pesticides in appropriate amounts at
the proper times and in the proper places.
Methods used to control wastes from livestock are described by Manges et
al . (1975) and Horton et al . (1976). More difficult to control than livestock
wastes will be the management of polluted runoff from urban areas--"runoff
generated by precipitation which washes and cleanses an urban environment, and
then transports the dirt, filth, etc. to the nearest natural or man-made water-
course" (Colston 1974). Urban runoff can be: (1) treated in municipal waste-
water treatment plants (but a high volume of runoff during a short time inter-
val may overload treatment facilities and result in ineffectual treatment), or
(2) stored temporarily in retention basins before being released to a stream
or to wastewater treatment facilities. Both methods are relatively expensive
and not entirely satisfactory.
It is hoped that the 208 plans will identify nonpoint pollution problems
in the Yellowstone River Basin and recommend feasible control techniques.
SLURRY PIPELINES
Slurry pipelines would transport a mixture of approximately one-half fine
coal and one-half water, by weight. An economically sized facility would re-
quire 7,500 acre-feet to transport ten million tons of coal per year. The
initial terminal would require storage facilities for large volumes of both
coal and water. Water storage should present no pollution problem. If treat-
ment of the water is required, various chemicals, solids, and sludges may have
to be handled. Water may leach through coal piles and contribute suspended and
81
dissolved contaminants to local water supplies. One remedy involves storing
the coal on impermeable sites with a settling basin downstream to collect
surface runoff. Currently, the export of coal via slurry pipelines is not a
beneficial use under Montana water law.
82
Sxi&tutq bituati/M
YELLOWSTONE RIVER MAINSTEM ABOVE THE MOUTH OF THE
CLARKS FORK YELLOWSTONE RIVER
The Yellowstone River drainage above the confluence of the Clarks Fork
River has been defined as the secondary study area, and only the ma ins tern of
the region has been inventoried in this survey. Water quality data are avail-
able from the USGS, which has maintained three monitoring stations on this
reach of the stream; however, these data are not extensive, particularly for
certain parameters, because the USGS stations have been in operation for only
a short period of tine (table 2). Supplemental data, collected as a part of
water quality runs on the mainstem (Peterman and Knudson 1975) and from other
programs (Karp et al . 1976a) are available from the state WQB for several lo-
cations on this segment of the river (table 4). Data from the two agencies
were combined for this inventory to provide information for four stations or
reaches of the Yellowstone from Corwin Springs to Laurel, Montana: at Corwin
Springs, near Livingston, between Big Timber and Columbus, and at Laurel
(above the Clarks Fork), in downstream order. Statistical summaries of the
major parameters are included in tables 25-28 for these locations. In some
cases, data obtained by the state WQB from closely related sites were combined
in order to expand the data base. Thurston et al. (1975) also present some
water quality information for the upper Yellowstone, but these data were not
reviewed for the current survey.
As indicated in table 25, the Yellowstone River at Corwin Springs has a
sodium-bicarbonate water through most seasons. The waters are generally soft
and would be classified as ideal for municipal supply (Bean 1972). The ionic
composition is probably a reflection of the river's proximity to its mountain-
ous headwaters. Yellowstone National Park streams are often quite sodic
(Klarich and Wright 1974, Rasmussen 1968, USEPA 1972, Wright and Mills no
date) as a result of the park's thermal discharges that flow over rhyolite
bedrock composed of sodium feldspars; calcium-containing rocks are relatively
rare (Boyd 1961, Roeder 1966). The sodic nature of the Yellowstone at Corwin
Springs is most distinct during low-flow periods when a large portion of the
discharge in the river below Gardiner (north park entrance) is due to the in-
flow from Yellowstone Park with reduced flows in Montana's tributary streams.
The high concentrations of fluoride and phosphorus in the river at Corwin
Springs and the purported arsenic problem of the upper Yellowstone River
(Montana DHES 1975, Montana DHES 1976) are also probably related to influences
originating within Yellowstone Park, e.g., from geyser activity.
During the spring high-flow period of the Yellowstone at Corwin Springs,
the waters have a higher ratio of calcium to sodium than at other seasons
(table 25), probably related to the greater flows and increased influence of
the tributary streams at this time. Yellowstone tributaries in Montana are
largely calcium bicarbonate above the confluence of the Clarks Fork River
(Karp et al . 1976). The effects of these tributary streams, e.g., the Shields,
3oulder, and Stillwater rivers which drain the Crazy, Absaroka, and Beartooth
mountains, are also evident in the mainstem in a downstream direction below
Corwin Springs through the increased flows of the river; in addition, calcium
83
o
00
o%
CO
-o
en
in
o
O
en
in
O
o
o
Q>
o
ro
co
CO
o
LO
o
<T\
£
CO
r^
•—
00
•~
ro
Crt
*-
■
>—
CM
ro
•— CM O
UD
CO
«—
*3"
o
o
o
o
o
*T
o
in
CO
>> X
o
o
-x>
O UD
O
UD
Crt
^3-
CO
o
CO
o
o
CM
Oi
O
3 £
CO
in
m
■^r
o o
UD
O
o
~D
>>
o
s: c
o
VO
cr>
O UD
ro
O
o
vO
o
o
21
CNI
«o
CNj
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
o
UD
o
^r
O
O
o
o
o
co
co
CO
cr.
Crt
en c
u ro
cn
en
<tf
o
co
■o
CT.
CO
o
O
O
OJ
o
CO
00
en
z:
o
CO
UD
o
o
O
co
o
o
O
o
o
CD
CNJ
o
UD
UD
■sT
•i- £
CL
' —
cr.
CO
co
CM
CO
1
i—
1 —
r*-
CM
UD
P"*
CM
r-
« —
o
o
■a:
^
o
m
-c: c
00
o>
o
o
o>
CO
o
«3-
O
CO
CM
s- s:
Ol
*3-
CO
CNJ
<T>
^"
1
•—
o
CM
•—
UD
UD
<—
CO
i—
o
o
o
E
*
CO
CO
CO
CO
-
CM
o
UD
UD
<*
■^r
-
CO
<* o o
o
«*
UD
**
•=3-
en
en
o
-o
*3-
CO
o
O
o
o
<=r
UD
o
o
OJ
O
CO
en
CM
CO
<d-
CD
s:
CNJ
^3-
o
o
>>
u
3
O
CSJ
o
CTi
I- X
o
o
CO
o
X) rO
CO
o
ro
r^.
CO
CO
cu e:
CO
CM
CO
CO
o
o
L1-
i-
OJ
CO
-Q C
■3"
o
o
o
co
o
mO
CT*
CTi
o
o
CO
CD
cu s:
00
o
C\J
O
O
«=r
cr>
o
o
o
>
o
CNJ
CD
CO
CO
CO
en
00
o
cr»
XJ
o
CO
o
o
o
~i Crt
CO
o
o
(U
en
o
O
CO
CO
O
s:
■"■
CO
,~~
CNJ
r"
ro
crt
r-
*""
ro
f-
UD
in
i— CM O
in
in
Crt
o
o
CD
S-
OJ
o
co
o
.O X
co
CO
00
o
<d-
Crt
CNJ
o <o
en
CO
co
CO
CM
o
UD
+-> s:
■3-
CO
CO
m
UD
o
o
O
o
4J
o
CNJ
,_
CO
<3"
CO
o
*3"
UD
*d-
o
o
LT)
o
UD
cr>
cts:
co
c6
CD
"3-
<3-
O
UD
o
o
CD
=3
<
«=r
ro
CD
o
CD
O
O
Crt
en
3
o.
-O
o
E
l/l
O
ct:
o
0J
ZIZ
c_>
o
o
O
(_>
DZ
f0
<
c_)
<
O
""
l_
°-
c/i
l-
•"
h"
o
CO
u-
O
^
•"
^ :*: in
JZ
*"
LT>
o
Lj"
zz
a.
84
o
o
O^
UD
CO
UD
m
«*•
o
O
ro
CNJ
UD
o
o
CNJ
CO
£
CT*
o
o
o
ON
UD
00
o
*T
CO
CNJ
o
UD
£
ro
o
CD
O
lO
CNJ
UD
o
ro
CO
CNJ
O
CO
CO
o
■3-
ON
CO
3 z:
CO
co
CO
00
CO
UD
o
o
o
^
>»
o
_
in
in
o
en
CNJ
CO
00
a
O
o
CO
CO
in
o
CJN
on
UD
CO
oo
CNJ
in
cr*
CD
*r
Cn
o
CNJ
LO
in
CM
CD
CD
O
o
<3-
^r
CO
CO
*3"
*3-
CO
*T
•a
CDN
CO
o
on
CO
O
o
CO
o
E
o
CO
o
C\J
CNJ
CO
in
o
CD
O
CO
o
cc
UD
on
o
o
ON
o
o
o
«=T
<NJ
CNJ
t. s
CM
r—
CO
CO
'
1
1
1
1
CNJ
CO
'-
CNJ
in
■""
r—
1
"*
"""
O
o
o
<c~
"5 c
o
in
^3-
on
ro
^
in
CO
UD
in
o
o
CDN
in
UD
13 SI
ud
C\J
o
CO
o
o
o
S
CD
co
CO
CO
00
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
co
CO
CO
CO
CO
2:
o
o
o
o
o
00
■o
S
Cn
CO
CO
o
CNJ
CJ>
CO
CD
o
ON
o
ro
in
CO
2
o
s:
ON
CD
co
CO
CD
o
o
>^
s_
3
o
<T»
m
<d-
UD
ON
o
o
o
n
o
a> s;
CO
CNJ
CO
CO
in
o
o
u.
sL
-Q c
^_
o
CO
CNJ
^j-
en
in
CO
UD
r^
o
o
CO
■=r
CD s:
o
o
ON
CD
o
o
>
o
z
z:
CO
ro
E
o
in
o
CD
.—
in
c
TD
o
CO
ro
UD
co
CO
UD
o
o
<U
CD
o
en
in
«T
m
S
^
r-
CM
^~
CNJ
en
"~
o
■""
in
•~~
■""
CO
o
ON
ro
CNI
^
CD
o
o
■a
ai
i-
o
ON
<T>
a*
ai
JD X
en
CO
CDN
ro
CD
UD
00
CO
©
i.
00
«3-
*-> S
ud
1—
CO
CNJ
1
i
•—
1
I
CNJ
CO
CO
CNJ
in
•—
•—
ce
CO
CO
CD
o
o
aw
O
m
J,
0
«-)
o
o
o
UD
CO
in
o
o
c
«3-
O
a
o
a>
OS
—
in
f~-
■—
■—
1
1
CO
1
1
^r
in
"~
CNJ
O
P*
l£
■—
CO
o
O
o
aj
•=£
3
cnj
■3-
en
cn
cn
CO
ON
ON
^
ON
cn
CDN
Ol
^
r-.
m
a>
in
C\J
CM
CO
CNJ
CO
o
z.
3
D_
.a
ro
O
Q
or
O
0)
o
Q
o
O
CD
a>
3Z
<S
o
«t
o
"-
Q.
uo
*—
*""
j—
a
CO
o
£
J—
z
"
l/l
DT
h-
in
t-J
u~
Z
a.
85
Lkl
0
CT.
0
T3
cn
CO
v£>
*T
CO
cn
*3-
if)
O
OJ
00
0
v£>
"X)
co
0
0
CD
vO
s:
LkJ
O
O
CNJ
en
0
e\j
m
Cn
PO
«T
CTt
cn
O
cC
CNi
0
O
CO
O
CvJ
>> x
O
0
O
VJD
CO
00
CNJ
CNJ
O
CO
cn
0
cn
vTJ
"T
^ 2;
CO
*r
co
CO
CNJ
0
CM
O
0
O
n
>■>
UJ
0
CO
to
en
2: c
Cn
0
vO
0
en
m
O
0
0
cn
CO
O
vo
VO
O
00
£
M
co
en
to
0
in
O
0
0
■ZL
■O
OJ
21
x
OJ
s- 2:
jD
0.
<=C
^
0 c
>
i- —
<0
TJ 2:
2:
+->
O
z:
Z
O
CT»
CO
-0
UD
O
CO
CNJ
CD
0
0
<u
CM
0
2:
■—
0
CO
co
CNJ
CSJ
co
•—
CNJ
CO
co
CO
*—
CNJ
*=*"
•""
*—
,—
^
•""
O
0
0
>>
t.
CO
en
vO
_
CNJ
00
en
O
CO
O
1- r3
10
-Q 2T
0
CO
m
n
«=i-
CNJ
en
*r
0
CD
O
a;
S-
^
^3"
O
t—
0) c
0
0
UD
CO
co
v£>
O
.a 1-
^
O
00
O
5 2:
0
CO
CO
CNJ
O
cn
O
O
O
0)
0
z
^
■"
CM
CM
OJ
(NJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CM
Csl
CNJ
CM
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CM
CNJ
CM
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
LU
CT»
O
X)
VJD
co
CO
CO
en
\SD
CD
CD
a>
CO
O
CO
CO
2:
"*
CO
CNJ
CNJ
to
r~
""■
CVJ
CVJ
r**
crt
■~
CNJ
CD
■"
en
CM
in
O
O
O
i_
UJ
O
<T>
*3"
*d-
.Q X
VO
co
cn
UD
cri
cn
O
CD
0 m
■«3-
O
cn
0
cr»
0
0
+-> 21
CO
a>
en
O
to
O
O
CD
u
O
4j
O
VO
0
1—
. —
CO
cn
0
0
O
vJD
CO
CO
CTl
CNJ
ens:
CM
CO
*=r
0
IO
CNJ
O
cri
tr>
O
CD
3
<=c
z
CM
~
-
u.
u.
-
-
■»
~
CM
u,
-
■"
Ul
CSJ
u>
<"
Ul
IT,
«
CNJ
10
m
3
a.
.O
cn
E
00
Q
of
O
<3"
CD
0
0
13
0
O
t_>
CJt
3=
<
O
<£
O
u-
a
*~
l_
1—
0
CO
U-
C_)
s:
t~"
2T
N^
l/l
=
on
0
U_
^
Dl
0
^
LTJ
,_
CM
-o
00
0
"O
vo
LT)
CM
in
cn
CM
O
OJ
VO
*3"
CM
O
O
IO
en
*""
CM
CM
m
CO
■"
CM
O
CTv
00
*~
I j
O
O
O
0
0
>»
cr*
ir>
0
VO
vo
co
O
O
O
0
ro
00
CO
CO
3 T3
0
cn
*T
cn
O
VO
^r
en
o z:
vn
»—
CO
**
CM
•—
<=*•
l—
co
VO
m
•—
*—
>-
CM
CD
*—
'—
vO
*r
O
O
*—
>*
2:
0
CO
c
in
0
cn
r-»
CO
cn
0
O
0
O
CM
CO
DO
x
UD
KO
CM
cn
CO
0
0
CM
<3-
O
O
O
CD
-
.
cn
CTv
CTv
CT\
CT>
Cn
CTv
-
CO
vn
vn
vn
vn
-
in
in
in
m
10
CO
er«
CTv
0
CO
«*■
■0
CT>
O
CTv
0
CO
0
CO
00
CO
0
gj
CO
O
Cn
0
0
CM
O
en
2:
O
CO
ID
CO
CO
ct>
0
CO
0
CO
O
00
O
VO
cn
0
0
CO
CM
O
O
VO
CM
1- £
CO
■vo
cn
0
^r
rr>
0
O
S-
Q.
<;
O
,_
.c c
LT>
00
CO
CO
cn
O
CO
10
0
O
cn
i- 2:
CO
CO
CTv
0
CO
CTV
CO
0
CO
0
O
s:
^
»
m
u,
u.
u,
U.
-
in
■^r
in
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CM
CO
CO
0
vn
m
O
VO
CJ>
VO
CO
0
CM
O
cn
CTt
*3"
CO
CO
0
0
OJ
CT>
«a-
O
CO
2:
CO
CO
vo
CO
O
CO
0
0
CD
>>
L.
3
O
O
cn
CM
in
i- X
O
LO
0
CTt
CTv
10
0
-O. <TJ
0
0
cn
«0
<u s:
CO
0-1
co
CM
O
VO
03
0
CD
LJ-
£
O
O
CO
JQ C
O
VO
CO
CO
CO
0
0
CD
CM
O
CO
CO
£ z:
O
CO
CO
CM
Cn
ro
O
CO
CD
0
0
z
z
CM
"
"
m
CO
CM
CM
CM
^
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
^
CO
CO
O
X)
co
IT)
■"■;
5
Ln
CM
Cn
^
O
O
^
CTV
*3"
n.
VO
0
CTi
CM
"~.
^
0
0
2:
LT>
■~
CO
CM
■"
co
r~
CO
■"
CM
Cn
CO
r~
CM
O
■""
CO
CM
vn
CD
0
0
u
OJ
00
vo
-O X
ctv
<3"
■X)
O
VO
0
0 <o
0
VO
«0
O
cn
-<-> z:
CM
CO
CO
«3-
cn
CO
O
CT>
u^
0
CD
0
w
O
LT>
~-
vo
CO
<X>
Cn
VO
0
0
3 —
O
0
CO
VO
u-»
01 z:
CM
CO
co
IT)
O
CT>
CO
0
0
ct
==
-
'X)
VO
-
vo
-
Ln
vn
vn
vn
CM
CM
CM
CM
-
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
-
VO
VO
3
Ql
.0
CO
O
s-
0
a:
0
IE
(_J
O
O
0
O
cr»
X
<c
<_>
•I
O
u-
1—
O.
1—
t—
V—
O
CO
LJ_
(_>
z:
1—
Z
^
UO
IC
*"
V/1
V_J
U"
°"
37
concentrations increase downstream while sodium levels in the river remain
fairly constant from Corwin Springs to Laurel. As a result, the Yellowstone
at Laurel is moderately hard with a calcium bicarbonate composition in all
seasons (table 28). A gradual decrease in fluoride and phosphorus concen-
trations is also evident in the mainstem to Laurel due to a dilution by tri-
butary streams which have relatively low concentrations of these constituents
(Karp et al . 1976). Similarly, there is a small but consistent increase in
magnesium levels downstream, accompanied by a decline in chloride concentra-
tions from Corwin Springs to Laurel. This further suggests the gradual de-
crease of Yellowstone National Park influences by progressive inputs of tri-
butary water. However, in all segments of the river above the Clarks Fork
River, magnesium, potassium, and chloride are minor constituents of the water,
with sulfate being the secondary anion.
A small downstream increase in median salinity of 10 percent to 45 percent,
as expressed in terms of dissolved solids and specific conductance, is evident
for the 158-mile segment of the upper Yellowstone between Corwin Springs and
Laurel; however, this increase is not totally consistent between all sites or
for all seasons. The increase in salinity is greatest during the May-July
period (between 30 percent and 45 percent), lowest during the summer and spring
(less than 15 percent), and intermediate during the winter (between 20 percent
and 30 percent). In addition, dissolved constituent concentrations in the
upper river are definitely flow-related, with higher levels generally obtained
during the low-flow periods. The four sampling stations on the upper segment
demonstrate a median difference in dissolved solids concentration between the
May-July, high-flow period and the low flows of winter. However, none of the
common ions have .markedly high concentrations during any of the seasons or at
any of the locations. Thus, the water in the upper Yellowstone River can be
characterized as distinctively non-saline with maximum dissolved solid and
specific conductance levels of 309 mg/1 and 443 ymhos/cm (at Laurel); minimum
values are 60 mg/1 and 80'ymhos at Corwin Springs. On the basis of salinity
and the common ions, the waters in the upper reach appear to be suitable for
application to all major beneficial uses, including agricultural, municipal
supply, and aquatic life.
As indicated in tables 15 and 16, SAR and specific conductance levels in
water from the upper Yellowstone, along with the river's chloride, sulfate, and
dissolved solids concentrations, indicate that the stream has a low salinity
hazard and a low sodium or alkali hazard for irrigation. As a result, the Yellow-
stone in this reach has a Class I water suitable for application to all crop and
forage plants, including the salinity-intolerant species (table 17). These waters
may also be classified as good in relation to livestock, as they are excellent
for the watering of all farm and domestic animals (tables 10-14). Common con-
stituent concentrations in the upper river were well below the threshold
levels established by the California State Water Quality Control Board (Calif-
ornia WQCB 1963). Of the ionic constituents, only fluoride occasionally ex-
ceeded the California WQCB threshold levels for stock in a few samples from
the river at Corwin Springs. This was generally not true at Livingston and
further downstream due to the subsequent dilutions of fluoride by inputs from
tributary streams. Even the occasionally high values of fluoride did not
approach levels that would be limiting (a maximum of 1.3 mg/1 versus the 6.0
mg/1 standard), and fluoride concentrations in all samples were well below
the criteria for livestock recommended by the EPA (USEPA 1973). As a result,
fluoride and dissolved solids concentrations of the upper river are well with-
in the prescribed limits for freshwater aquatic life.
Fluorides in the Yellowstone River above Laurel are below the recommended
upper limits for human consumption and are well below concentrations that would
constitute a rejection of public supply (table 9). Similarly, concentrations
of dissolved solids and common constituents such as chloride and sulfate are
considerably below the standards, criteria, and recommendations established
by various agencies for drinking water and surface water, and municipal supply
(USEPA 1973, USDI 1968, USDHEW 1962). In fact, the concentrations of these
constituents and the soft water would make the river desirable as a water
supply, according to the NTAC's recommendation (USDI 1968). The relatively
high level of fluoride in the river at Corwin Springs is actually within the
optimum range (USDHEW 1962) and may be advantageous in eliminating the need
for accessory fluoridation. Thus, the occurrence of high fluorides in the
upper Yellowstone, stemming from thermal activity in Yellowstone national
Park, may not be as degrading to the river or to its beneficial use as has
been suggested in other water quality surveys (Montana DHES 1975, Montana
DHES 1976).
Turbidity and total suspended sediment (TSS) levels in the upper Yellow-
stone at Corwin Springs are low in comparison with other streams of the in-
ventory area (table 25), even during the spring runoff period when the turbidity
and TSS are highest (Karp and Botz 1975, Karp et al. 1975). This is also true
of the river near Livingston (table 26) although there is a slight downstream
increase in TSS between the two sites during high-flow periods. The low tur-
bidity and relatively uncolored waters (color ranging between one and four
units) indicate that the extreme upper reach of the Yellowstone is aestheti-
cally pleasing during a large part of the year. In turn, the low TSS and
TDS concentrations and the low turbidity of the Corwin Springs-Livingston
reach describe a water potentially excellent for a freshwater fishery (Ellis
1944, European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission 1965). Furthermore, the
maximum temperatures of the Corwin Springs-Livingston reach (tables 25 and
26) and the temperatures recorded by the USGS for the stream at Livingston
are typically below the critical maximum temperatures designated for B-D-| and
B-D2 class streams (table 8). For example, since 1970, only 9.7 percent of
the once-daily temperature measurements at Livingston exceeded 19.5°C for the
June-to-September, warm-weather period; 4.3 percent equalled or exceeded
20.0°C (USDI 1966-1 974a) . As a result, the upper Yellowstone fishery should
be salmonid and cold-water, in accordance with the river's classification as
a blue ribbon trout stream above Big Timber (Berg 1977).
Turbidity and TSS concentrations are also low during periods of reduced
flow through the lower segment of the upper river (tables 27 and 28), but
there is a distinct downstream increase in these parameters during the spring
and at high flows. This does not detract, however, from the value of the
river as a water supply for municipalities, as the stream's< turbidities, with
only a few exceptions, are below the permissible criteria for surface supply
throughout the year at all locations. The major effect, therefore, of the
increased TSS levels may contribute to a degradation and alteration of the
river's fishery, as turbidity-TSS levels at Laurel would classify the stream
as only fair through the March-to-July period (European Inland Fisheries Ad-
visory Commission 1965). In addition, the river tends to warm below Big Timber.
80
This, in turn, may also reduce the potential of the river as a cold-water
fishery. Median temperatures were usually higher at Laurel than at Corwin
Springs (except in the winter), and temperatures greater than 19.5°C were
more common in the Laurel segment. Since 1970, 16.7 percent of the minimum
daily temperatures in the Yellowstone at Billings, about 36 river miles be-
low Laurel, were in excess of 19.5°C with 11.5 percent equal to or greater
than 20.0°C (USDI 1966-1974b); this contrasts with the smaller, once-daily
percentages obtained for the Yellowstone at Livingston. These varying ob-
servations correspond to the classifications of the river between Big Timber
and Laurel to Custer as a transition zone fishery, changing from a cold-water
stream above Big Timber to a warm-water stream below the confluence of the
Bighorn River (Peterman 1977).
The Yellowstone River above Laurel appears to be non-eutrophic as concen-
trations of phosphorus and nitrogen were usually below the designated criti-
cal levels (0.05 mg P/l and 0.35 mg N/1). For the most part, nutrient con-
centrations, particularly nitrogen, were well below the reference levels
specified by the EPA (USEPA 1974b)— 0.1 mg P/l and 0.9 mg N/1. On the basis
of nutrient concentrations, the river at Corwin Springs makes the closest
approach to eutrophy, particularly during the winter-to-spring (table 25).
Due to Yellowstone National Park influences, median phosphorus concentrations
in the river at this upper station exceeded the reference criteria; however,
median nitrogen concentrations were below this value, apparently preventing
eutrophication. Below Corwin Springs, phosphorus levels generally tended to
decline downstream with the exception of a marked increase at Laurel during
the March-to-July period (table 28). These high phosphorus concentrations at
Laurel might have been derived from confluences to the river below Columbus,
possibly in association with high flows and sediment inputs, as TSS levels
were also high during this period. However, extremely low nitrogen concentra-
tions again apparently precluded the development of eutrophic conditions.
Other than this spring-summer pulse of phosphorus at Laurel, no seasonal
trends were evident in this variable at any of the stations.
Nitrogen concentrations also tended to decline downstream from Corwin
Springs, and they were noticeably low in the river at Laurel. Nitrogen levels
were consistently low during the summer period when the river's flora would be
in full bloom. There appeared to be a nitrogen peak during the dormant winter
season when biotic uptake would be at a minimum, and concentrations were high
in the spring. The general declines in phosphorus and nitrogen downstream
might have been due to tributary dilutions below Corwin Springs or to the pro-
gressive use of these nutrients by the stream's periphyton. The upper river
appears to be more nitrogen- than phosphorus-limited. The average median con-
centration of phosphorus equalled 109 percent of its reference level in con-
trast to 28 percent for nitrogen. These observations of nitrogen limitation
and non-eutrophy in the upper Yellowstone are in accordance with Klarich's
(1976) conclusions concerning the Yellowstone between Laurel and Huntley.
Due to the low total alkalinities of the upper Yellowstone (the state
average is 134 mg/1 CaC03) (Botz and Peterson 1976), the river would be sen-
sitive to acid discharges. However, the river does not appear to be affected
in this manner since the ranges of pH in the stream are closely coincidental
with the range that is typical of most natural waters: 6.0 to 8.5 units
(Hem 1970). Median pH's for all locations and seasons are well within the
90
standards established for B-D] streams (table 8); thus, pH should not detract
from the river's beneficial use as a sport fishery or for livestock and muni-
cipal supply. Seasonal trends in pH are not obvious, although relatively low
pH values were obtained during the high flows in association with the reduced
al kal ini ties at this time. In addition, median pH tended to decline upstream
in correspondence with the decrease in total alkalinity and bicarbonate.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the upper Yellowstone are also in accord
with the stream's value as a fishery and municipal supply. Minimum DO concen-
trations at all stations, even during the warm-weather periods, were well
above the critical value specified by the state's water quality standards for
B-D, streams (Montana DHES undated). Median DO concentrations were very near
saturation in the upper Yellowstone (table 29); individual samples varied be-
tween 92 percent and 124 percent of saturation. This aspect and the generally
low five-day BOD's of the river samples indicate no extensive organic pollu-
tion in the upper Yellowstone drainage. For example, about 90 percent of the
samples had BOD5 values less than or equal to 3.0 mg/1, while 98 percent had
BODc values less than 5.0 mg/1. The general absence of allochthonous organic
matter in the upper river is confirmed by the low total organic carbon (TOC)
and chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentrations of the samples (table 29).
Median TOC levels in the upper Yellowstone were actually less than an average
value (10 mg/1) obtained from unpolluted waters (Lee and Hoodley 1967).
In addition to the data available for the major parameters summarized in
tables 25-28 for the upper Yellowstone River, some data are also available for
various trace elements, such as metals, and for other constituents such as
color, TOC, COD, and MBAS (methylene blue active substances). Since these
data are generally not abundant, stations were combined to expand the data
base of these parameters into two reaches of the upper river — a reach above
Livingston to Corwin Springs, and one extending from Livingston to Laurel.
The total recoverable and the dissolved concentrations of the trace elements
were compiled separately, as applicable, because a metal's dissolved compon-
ent represents a subset of its total recoverable concentrations, i.e., total
recoverable should exceed dissolved. A summary of the trace element concen-
trations and the other minor constituent levels for the two reaches are pre-
sented in table 29.
None of the miscellaneous, non-metal constituent concentrations in the
upper Yellowstone suggest pollution problems. Silica concentrations were high
above Livingston, which is probably accounted for by the alumino-sil icate type
of rock in the stream's drainage in Yellowstone National Park (Boyd 1961).
However, silica concentrations declined below Livingston, and the median value
in this reach was equal to the median value for the nation's surface waters
(Davis 1964). Cyanide (CN) was not detected in any of the samples examined
for this constituent, and the general lack of MBAS reactions in the samples
indicates an absence of synthetic detergents in the river (USDI 1 966-1 974b) .
The median oil and grease value was below state standards (table 8), although
one of the samples collected for this analysis exceeded this criteria. Fecal
coliforms were low at all stations for most of the year, indicating a general
absence of marked municipal pollution reaching the river. Fecal levels were
below state criteria, and fecal coliforms, along with boron, were well be-
neath the recommended levels of the NTAC and the EPA for public (and livestock)
water supplies (table 9). In addition, boron concentrations in the upper
91
Ol i—
c:
S d)
l/l
01
■*-> S-
:3
<1> 3
ro
+->
-O fO
+->
_l
0)
-t->
S-
>
1/) X
O) "O
C <T3
> c
Ol
o 5:
i- fO
I —
<_>
cm O r»- i — f—
O <d" • o •
i — O 00 i— IT) • o
CO NOl
*3- ^d" CM CM
CM . OO IJD "^ O •
r- O r— .— r— • O
<T> O CO O CM V V
CM C-
■ — O LD
O t— i— O i— ■—
O O O ID O • I—
O i—
p- i— «* o
O O O CO o
V o en o
v o v v v
i — o
fO l/l
4-> t~
CM <JD CO O O
Oi— >— OOOOOOCMO
• on o o o
O • 'OOOOO • • •
co
I— O O i— r-lfllDr-
Ooooooooooi-ncMO
00«) • • O • O O CO O
• • • o o • o • • • •
OOLDOOOOOOOO
• • o
oo -oooooooo
rorii — «a- oo r — o
i— o o o o o o .—
O O O • O CM o o
Ocr>rOLr)ix>"3-CMO
koocMOOcMOLn
l-^OOOOCMOO
co r-
ooooo^-oo
i— o •
o o o o o • • o
0O CM CM CM CM
CMi — i — i — I — "*•*!—
u
(T3 T-
CI)
r— s:
OL
1 —
cu
o
(V,
to
+->
o
s:
o o
o o
CM LT> O
O V o
o o
O O i— co
O r—
V V
Or— ro =E COO O
OOZOfflI»8'rOOiw ro CJ H O S- 3 dl Ol
ouoQSZouH-<<mmcouuuuii-z
O -i- -Q Ol S-
z z o- w i^
92
Yellowstone are in accordance with the classification of the stream as a Class
I water for irrigation, suitable for application to boron-sensitive crops
(tables 15-17).
Ammonia concentrations were similar in both reaches of the upper river;
ammonia levels were well below the permissible criteria and recommendations
of the NTAC and the EPA for domestic use. At the median pH levels of the
river, between 7.5 and 8.4 units, about two percent to twelve percent of the
ammonia concentrations listed in table 29 would be in an un-ionized form and
potentially toxic to aquatic life (USEPA 1973); this would afford median con-
centrations of un-ionized ammonia in the stream between 0.001 mg N/1 and
0.008 mg N/1 and a maximum concentration of 0.05 mg N/1. However, these med-
ian values are less than the criteria listed by the EPA for this constituent
in relation to freshwater aquatic life (table 19), and they afford a minimal
risk to the river's biota.
In addition to its potential toxicity, ammonia can be used by aquatic
plants as a nutrient and is a potential eutrophicant, as it may add to a water's
nitrogen concentration. However, this does not appear to be true in the upper
Yellowstone as median ammonia concentrations in the river would be at levels
inadequate to increase inorganic nitrogen to the point of causing eutrophy.
For example, the median (NO2 + N03)-N concentrations of the river at Corwin
Springs in the winter (maximum eutrophic potential) plus the median NH3-N
value equalled only 0.33 mg N/1, below the critical reference levels.
The generally greater total recoverable (TR) levels of a trace element
over its dissolved component are illustrated in table 29 for the As, Fe, and
Mn data. High TR concentrations may indicate a water quality problem, but not
the specific problem because a large portion of the metal may be associated
with particulate matter and therefore not free in the water. High dissolved
concentrations of a metal would afford a more accurate diagnosis. However,
low TR (and dissolved) levels of a trace element would definitely indicate
the absence of those problems in a water associated with that particular con-
stituent. On this basis, even though many of the trace elements were detected
in low levels at least in some of the samples from the upper Yellowstone, most
do not appear to be at concentrations sufficient to detract from the water's
use. As indicated in table 29, this would include most notably: Ag, Ba, Be,
Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Pb, and Zn; concentrations were usually well below the vari-
ous reference criteria for aquatic life, for drinking water and public supply,
and for livestock water and irrigation.
Of the various metals, iron and manganese were most commonly found in
high concentrations in the upper Yellowstone samples; the high TR levels were
generally obtained in conjunction with high river flows and in association
with the larger sediment concentrations. Total recoverable Fe and Mn concen-
trations often exceeded the criteria for drinking water and public supply,
and the former parameter often exceeded the recommended maximum concentration
for freshwater aquatic life. As noted previously, however, TR concentrations
are suggestive of potential problems only; the median dissolved concentrations
of these two constituents would indicate that Fe and Mn, for the most part,
do not detract from the beneficial uses of the upper river. This also ap-
plies to most of the other trace elements that were commonly found in detec-
table concentrations— B, Mo, Ni, Se, Sr, and V, and possibly As. Arsenic levels
93
were also relatively high in the upper river, corresponding to the designation
of this parameter as a potential nonpoint water-quality problem originating
from Yellowstone National Park and adjacent areas (Montana DHES 1975, Montana
DHES 1976). Although median concentrations were above the American Public
Health Service standard for drinking water (USDHEW 1962), they were below the
permissible level designated by NTAC and below the recommendation of the EPA
for public water supplies (table 9). In addition, arsenic concentrations
tended to decline downstream, posing a less critical problem for the river at
Laurel, and this parameter does not appear to be at hazardous levels for the
river's biota.
Of more immediate interest are the occasionally high TR levels obtained
for mercury in excess of the criteria for aquatic life and public supply.
Particularly notable is the fact that the high median dissolved concentrations
of mercury are greater than the average level recommended for freshwater life
by the EPA (table 19). Thus, high mercury levels may actually represent a
greater water quality problem for the upper drainage than arsenic, and this
parameter definitely merits further consideration in future monitoring pro-
grams.
Some pesticide and herbicide data are also available for the Laurel and
Corwin Springs stations on the Yellowstone River. In contrast to mercury,
however, these potential pollutants apparently have no effect on the water
quality in the stream. Of the 332 analyses for these various chemical con-
stituents (14 parameters including lindane; DDT; endrin; 2,4,5-T; and silyex),
only one parameter in one sample (0.3 percent of the analyses) was found in
detectable concentrations-^, 4-D at 0.04 yg/1 (USDI 1966-1974b).
In summary, it may be easily concluded that an excellent water quality
generally enters the primary survey area from the upper reaches of the Yellow-
stone River.
YELLOWSTONE RIVER— CLARKS FORK RIVER TO BIGHORN RIVER
YELLOWSTONE MAINSTEM
Several tributary streams of varying flow magnitudes enter the mainstem
through this reach. These can be classified into three groups: (1) the large
streams, the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River, and Pryor Creek, which have a dis-
tinct loading potential and thereby a potential to affect water quality in the
mainstem; (2) various intermediate streams, such as Fly Creek; and (3) numerous
streams with small flows, such as Duck Creek, Blue Creek, and Alkali Creek;
these creeks probably exert minor individual effects on the mainstem but may
have cumulative influences on the river's quality as the Yellowstone passes
through this study reach. The Clarks Fork River is the largest of these tri-
butaries and was defined as occupying the eastern segment of the secondary
study area. As a result, the quality of water in this river will not be
directly inventoried in this survey. However, several reports are available
that have considered the quality of water in the Clarks Fork River in detail
(Karp et al . 1976a, Karp et al . 1976b, Klarich 1976), and this information
will be used as a reference point for assessing the potential effects of the
Clarks Fork on the mainstem.
94
Considerable amounts of USGS water quality data are available for the
Yellowstone River at Billings (table 3). In addition, lesser amounts of
data have been collected by this agency for three other locations on this
reach as supplemented by state WQB data (table 6)--near Laurel (below the
Clarks Fork), at Billings, at Huntley, and at Custer. This information is
summarized in tables 30-33 for the major parameters. The data in table 31
for the Yellowstone River at Billings is probably most representative of the
river's overall quality in this segment due to the greater period of col-
lection.
The Yellowstone in the Laurel -to-Custer reach has a calcium-bicarbonate
type of water, and sodium and sulfate are secondary ionic constituents. Mag-
nesium, potassium, and chloride are again minor components of the water and
have no major effect on the river's quality in terms of its various bene-
ficial uses. This is also true of fluoride with concentrations at low levels
in this downstream segment in comparison to the river at Corwin Springs. The
concentrations of these four minor constituents varied inversely with flow
and are at the same levels observed for the river at Laurel (table 29). In
contrast to the downstream increase in magnesium and the downstream decrease
in fluoride and chloride noted for the upper river, the concentrations of
these four minor constituents remained remarkably constant throughout the
Laurel -to-Custer segment of the stream. The primary and secondary ions also
varied inversely with flow, but in contrast to the minor constituents, these
components tended to increase downstream in relation to the Yellowstone at
Laurel as a reference point. As a result, the increase in salinity (total dis-
solved solids or specific conductance) observed for the upper river continues
to occur through the Billings segment of the mainstem. On the basis of these
dissolved constituents, the quality of water in the Yellowstone is best at
upstream sites during the periods of higher flow.
In contrast to the upper river, the downstream increase of salinity in
the Laurel -to-Custer reach was greatest during the August- to-October period
(rather than at high flows) and ranged between 50 percent and 68 percent in
the vicinity of Laurel, and from 91 percent to 113 percent for the entire
segment. The increase near Laurel was probably a reflection of the confluence
of the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River which has high specific conductances in
comparison to the mainstem (Karp et al . 1976a, Karp et al. 1976b, Klarich 1976)
Through the remainder of the year, the increase in salinity was lowest during
the winter (7 percent to 23 percent near Laurel and 40 percent to 47 percent
for the segment) and somewhat higher during the spring-to-summer period (23
percent to 49 percent near Laurel and 55 percent to 82 percent overall). The
overall increase in salinity was much greater through the 91-mile Laurel-to-
Custer segment of the stream than for the 158-mile stretch of the upper river--
a maximum increase of about 1.1 percent per river-mile and a minimum of 0.5
percent per mile below Laurel versus a maximum salinity increase of 0.2 per-
cent per mile and a minimum of about 0.05 percent per river-mile above Laurel.
For the entire reach of the river from Corwin Springs to Custer, salinity in-
creased between 70 percent and 122 percent during low-flow periods and between
122 percent and 150 percent during the high-flow period, indicating a definite
downstream degradation in mainstem water quality.
Regardless of the marked increases in salinity, the entire Laurel-to-
Custer segment of the river remains non-saline in character (Robinove et al .
1958); however, it becomes more typically hard in nature in this reach,
95
o
a
iT>
o
o
-o
00
in
o
o
m
in
o
cm rr
^o
CM
qj
co
in
CO
CO
cn
a»
•XJ
ro
£
o
g
in
CM
CO
ro
CO r-
o
cn
CO
e j
O
o
o
>>
oa
O
O
o
CO
o
o
m
in
o
CO
«3"
^r
<r>
CM
CM
3 *0
cn
Cr.
o
CO
00
O
o
*"3 21
*>■
CO
00
*r
*-
CO
CM
en
in
*—
CM
CO
*"
CM
O
■—
•~
u->
ro
o
o
*—
>>
a
o
o
CM
o
o-
o
o
co
o
ro
^j-
.—
o
CM
o
*r
o
CD
«3"
en
z
o
O
CT.
CM
CO
*3"
O
IC
O
o
o
o
CO
CO
a
CO
■o
CS(
o
CO
cn
cn
CO
\o
OJ
ID
o
o
o
o
e:
CO
^
00
"*
^
^f
1
l—
'■"
CO
"3-
"""
,—
CM
1
1
i—
f^'
in
o
o
o
a
ID
o
S- X
^r
^
o
«tf
o
00
>X)
Q- <TJ
o
O
o
CM
o
<=r
CO
cn
<t e:
un
CO
ID
1
"—
CM
*-■
^
•—
■—
CM
1
•"
cn
U3
o
o
o
jz
o
i_
o
<o c
o
CO
O
CM
co
o
(£>
<a0
o
o
2: •<-
ro
O
o
ro
s:
CM
<3-
*3"
CD
o
o
z:
-
*
«
lO
lO
N
o
lO
in
-
-
-
<X>
CM O O
o
CM
KO
^i-
M
<x>
UD
O
o
o
c
O
o
cn
*J o
o
VD
O
lO
o
«3"
<X>
e:
o
CO
«3-
O
o
o
>,
s-
s
o
,_
o
en
o
O
ID
o
o
<X)
-Q <0
to
CO
o
Cn
CO
cn
CO
o
oj e:
CO
ro
cn
O
o
o
i
o
CM
o
_a c
o
o
o
o
<*■
o
E n-
o
O
CM
a> e:
o
*r
O
■X)
^J-
o
o
o
>
o
-z.
ro
CO
ro
CM
z
UD
cn
en
ro r
cn
o
o
<3"
«d-
o
CO
*3"
IT)
ID
^T
CO
CO
o
o
in
O
CM
ro
^O
e:
*
"-
CO
CVJ
«t
^~
cn
■""
^
ro
r~
"""
CM C
\J o
"""
,—
LD
•*
o
o
o
i_
ai
o
o
cn
.o >:
OQ
ix)
CD
O
CO
o
<x>
co
o>
CO
*-> e:
CO
CO
*t
•et
l o
CO
o
o
o
o
-*->
o
a
o
CO
o
O
CO
^r
,__
<x>
<£)
CO
ro
o
o
lO
o
en
OTZ
CM
o
CO
I o
CO
o
o
o
<x
o
zz
UD
cn
en
— CO
vo
cn
CO
«d-
3
Q.
-O
ro
o
cn
O
t_j
O
in
o
o
^
<
O
<t
O
u-
►—
a.
1/1
•"
h-
o
CO
U~
o
s:
1—
z ^ t/1
X
1—
oo
o
u
:z
a.
96
0
t0
0
CO
ro
■o
CM
m
*r
lO
ro
CO
to
a.
ro
0
O
gj
CO
in
cr»
CO
a>
LO
a>
ro
0
0
^r
a\
CO
CO
0
CT!
\c
O
0
O
>t
CO
crt
O
CTt
CTt
C\J
O
O
O
CO
to
CTt
3 T3
CO
CO
CO
00
O*
CO
CTt
CO
o 51
LO
CM
CO
10
ro
CO
«3"
en
ro
CM
<3"
'—
•—
«r
f*»
1—
•—
Ol
•—
c
O
O
O
it
£
O
,_
c
CTt
in
0
CO
■*r
CO
CM
CO
O
O
CO
<T»
O
^r
CO
to
CO
CM
CO
CM
^
ro
CM
LT)
~
0
in
O
O
O
0
^
^
CM
O
O
CM
cn
CM
CTt
ZT
ro
CO
co
n
CM
cn
LO
in
in
*T
in
C J
0
O
to
-o
CO
0
CO
C\J
0
0
CO
CO
to
O
CD
lO
CO
O
O
*3-
in
in
z:
O
to
CO
<T
CO
^r
ro
O
O
O
to
CO
O
0
to
CM
ro
to
•i- re
to
00
0
CO
UD
00
O
0
i. E
CO
^r
O
O
Q.
<C
-C
O
u c
^T
CO
CT*
^r
CO
O
O
CO
0
CO
to
re s:
0
CM
0
ro
10
O
O
O
z:
r^
-^
-^
CO
CO
LO
^
r^
DO
in
0
O
z
O
0
0
O
0
O
ro
-o
ro
O
CTt
CO
CO
CO
^f
CTt
to
CM
O
01
CO
to
s:
0
CO
CM
CT»
en
-^r
en
O
CO
c
0
O
O
t>
3
0
«?
CM
i- X
0
CO
to
0
0
0
0
CO
0
oj z:
to
CO
CO
CM
CM
0
O
O
U-
t.
Ol
0
-O C
ro
0
0
O
O
CO
CO
O
O
E f-
<3-
O
CO
CM
CTt
<u z:
0
O
ro
0
O
O
o
z
CTi
0
^
^
«3"
^J-
r_
ro
CO
r^
^
to
in
r^
ro
CM
CTt
CTt
*z
LT)
ro
m
in
cn
ro
O
O
O
0
0
CO
*r
XD
CO
CO
00
CM
o~»
CO
ro
in
O
0
ai
CO
at
<3"
n
CO
CM
ro
CTt
O
z:
0
0
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
0
CT
to
0
O
0
i_
0
in
CM
CM
vo
10
CO
JD re
0
C\J
CO
CO
CO
CO
o z:
CM
CO
<d-
LQ
0
0
o
0
0
4J C
in
CO
CM
P^,
r^
,_
**■
r^
ro
LO
ro
O
0
CM
a\
O
CTt
3 2:
C\J
0
to
CM
•—
i"*-
CO
1
'
1
CM
CO
CO
•—
CM
O
*--
1
ro
ro
O
O
0
C?
■=i
^.
in
,_
ro
^
CM
,__
,_
CO
on
CO
CO
CO
CTt
^
CO
to
^r
z
*T
m
ro
ro
ro
2
a.
.0
0
a
or
O
*r
a)
^
O
a
3
0
0
O
<t
O
<
O
u-
0.
00
t—
h"
a
CO
Ll.
C_>
E
■"
sz
Ml
to
IC
LO
t_j
Li_
as
.
97
0
0
in
in
0
CO
"O
CO
O
in
*3"
CM
0
cn
0
0
CO
0
01
LO
in
CM
*r
cn
10
CO
CO
z:
0
0
«3-
CO
CM
10
O
CO
CO
0
0
CD
>%
m
0
0
CO
O
r^.
O
CO
0
0
O
CO
CM
in
co
CO
en
O
0
in
in
CO
^ 2;
10
CM
CO
«3"
(NJ
in
1—
in
in
**
•—
*—
CO
CM
r—
•—
■—
cn
in
0
CD
O
>*
z:
O
c
0
0
en
in
O
0
10
CO
^r
in
CD
CD
«5T
CTi
CM
cn
CD
z
10
CO
CM
10
CM
CO
CM
CM
0
CO
in
10
CD
10
0
O
O
z
CO
CO
CO
10
0
■0
0
cn
O
10
10
O
0
0
10
QJ
c^
«=r
cn
«?r
0
cn
Ln
E
0
CO
0
Csj
<&
cn
0
O
O
en
.— X
co
ro
CNJ
0
0
0
0
cn
0
10
«=r
0
CO
s- EI
CO
CO
cn
CM
«3*
en
0
0
O
d.
<£
_^
0
CO
in
D c
0
cn
cn
10
CO
CO
CM
10
0
s*. *-
vC
<o
O
CO
«=r
rO 2:
CO
CM
CM
CO
CO
0
10
^r
0
CD
0
s:
0
z
CO
en
CO
CO
CO
V0
10
CO
CO
0
CO
cn
■a
en
0
«3"
0
10
cn
0
10
CM
0
01
cn
0
10
10
0
e:
ro
•—
•**
«3-
CO
•~~
in
•—
CM
CM
^
■—
•—
CO
CO
»-*
•—
•—
•-
00
0
0
0
>>
ra
0
cn
0
CO
CO
3 :<
0
in
0
CSJ
0
10
en
10
CO
S_ ro
^r
0
CM
0
10
CM
JD EI
10
LT)
CO
in
^
CM
CO
<™
CO
CM
in
■—
CM
CO
*3"
•—
•~~
•—
•—
en
0
0
CD
Ul
l_
0
in
r^
*3-
(U c
0
0
ro
0
0
O
cn
en
O
cn
O
-Q ■!-
0
0
10
10
CO
E EI
0
^r
CO
CO
CM
CO
0
0
O
O
aj
0
z
^
10
en
**
CO
co
CM
CM
r"
<0
^
CO
CO
CO
CO
CVJ
CO
CO
^
CO
CO
in
vO
V0
O
ro
cn
-0
CM
0
cn
*3"
0
O
en
10
10
0
CD
0)
CO
0
10
10
CM
CO
2:
^
r—
CO
ro
CM
l^
CM
CO*
CM
ro
■""
"""
CM
CM
0
"~
"""
10
in
0
0
O
s-
0
in
0
O
^
O) X
^j
10
O
10
O
O
O
CO
CO
cn
CO
10
CO
.0. fti
^
O
en
O
CO
10
■tf
0 2:
cn
CO
*3-
CO
CO
CO
en
10
0
0
O
0
0
in
,_
-»-> c
—
0
v0
O
10
10
CO
<3-
O
O
X
cn
10
CO
cn
3 z:
ro
CO
f"-
CM
•—
in
CO
I""*
•—
cn
CM
cn
10
«—
CM
0
«—
en
LD
**
0
0
O
3
d
0
CD
z
in
vo
10
CO
CO
3
CL
n
O
s-
cn
cc
0
O)
^
Q
0
0
c_>
cn
rc
<t
0
<t
0
U-
t—
O.
OO
1—
t—
1—
0
CO
u_
<_>
z:
h-
z:
*4
V~i
3:
h"
Ln
<_>
u~
^:
CL'
98
O
O
O
co
wn
CO
CO
■o
CO
in
CM
CM
0
*r
WO
co
in
CSJ
CM
■3-
CO
Cn
CO
0
O
CM
s.
O
O
O
0
co
CM
CM
en
WO
«3"
CM
O
ro
cn
CSJ
0
a.
rn
CD
O
O
>* x
0
en
O
*J-
WD
O
in
Cn
*r
0
10
«T
WO
C\J
WO
O
0
CM
<d-
CO
ro
CO
co
3 n:
"*
CM
co'
CO
CM
ro
wn
■""
wn
a\
ro
■""
"-
CM
CSJ
0
•~
■-
WD
ro
O
O
O
>i
O
O
e
^3-
O
LD
en
0
0
0
vo
CO
CSJ
O
O
CO
*»■
CSJ
wT>
O
E
CO
0
CSJ
10
0
CO
CM
<Z>
O
O
z
LO
WO
wo
WO
WD
.
CO
WO
WO
CO
CO
ro
WD
„
ro
CO
CO
IC
UD
CO
-
WO
WD
O
in
TJ
O
LD
O
O
CO
wn
in
0
(D
CO
CO
ro
0
WD
Cn
WO
in
<3-
«T
£
C>
"*
CO
"*
CO
LT.
^
r_
CM
WD
CO
*""
"""
CM
0
■"
IO
to
1
O
O
,_ .
O
CM
«*
CO
CO
O
O
O
O
CO
■tr
CO
en
wo
O
0-1
O
c.2:
CO
LD
CO
WO
^J-
0
0
<C
£
O
0
s- c
O
en
en
wo
CO
0
O
CT*
CO
O
**
VO
s: 2:
co
00'
'
0
0
z
co
m
CM
CO
CO
CO
-
CO
CO
-
-
-
CO
-
0
-
-
CM
ro
-
0
CO
CO
0
^r
0-.
CO
■0
0
0
«=J-
LT)
0
CO
CO
<3-
U3
CO
0
01
0
-=*"
10
CO
O
>>s
ro
0
CO
en
^j-
en
*3-
0
O
0
S-
3
s-
c
m
J3 X
0
CO
en
CVJ
wD
CD ro
O
ro
r»»
CO
IE
u. e:
^
-—
CO
ID
«^r
-—
f^-
-—
CO
"—
LT)
CSj
CM
ro
<=fr
1—
t—
ad
O
0
0
w_
<u
JD
0
0
E £=
0
0
CO
0
CO
O
CO
0
0
<u •—
CO
0
0
WD
in
> s:
0
en
CO
en
O
0
0
0
z
z
-
wo
WO
-
ID
WO
CM
wo
WD
CM
CM
~
WO
^3-
CO
CM
CM
WO
UD
CSJ
CO
wn
WD
0
Ol
CO
CM
■0
CO
0
CO
O
*3-
<3
O
0)
CO
CO
wo
WO
0
■"tf-
O
CO
2:
0
CO
CO
ro
en
<3-
en
m
0
O
O
cr»
WO
lO
WO
O
CO
wO
wn
0) <o
CO
UD
O
cn
CO
O
■3-
10
-0 s:
CO
CO
ro
CM
ro
ro
en
<X)
O
O
0
0
0
0
CO
CO
WO
•3-
WD
WD
cn
U3
O
0
in
en
O
CO
1/1 s
CO
WO
CO
csj
O
0
in
<=r
O
O
0
3
CD
3
d
Z
"*
*r
m
"*
in
"*
■""
WO
"*
•""
CsJ
CM
wn
ro
CO
CM
CM
wn
in
CM
CO
wn
in
3
Q.
X]
CO
c
u
00
O
ce
O
<3-
01
3:
0
Q
3
0
O
O
on
^
«t
O
<
O
L-
a.
10
H"
r—
•"
CD
ca
U-
(_>
z:
1—
Z
^
w-0
"*-
•"
m
O
"■
z
.-
99
rather than soft or moderately hard, and therefore it is not an ideal public
supply (Bean 1972). In addition, this reach is not as desirable a source for
municipal water as it is upstream due to the increases in sulfate and total
dissolved solids. Nevertheless, on the basis of the dissolved common con-
stituents, the water in the Laurel -to-Custer reach of the Yellowstone is suit-
able for this use and has an excellent quality for the watering of all live-
stock, as sulfate, chloride, and total dissolved solids concentrations (and
bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, and sodium levels) were well below the rec-
ommended maximum criteria for these applications (tables 9-14). Given
these aspects plus the low SAR values of the samples, the river between Laurel
and Custer possesses a low sodium hazard and a medium salinity hazard for
irrigation (Richards 1954) and a Class I type of water that may be successfully
applied to most crop and forage species (tables 15-17). In addition, this
reach of the river should also be suitable for the support of viable fresh-
water communities. As described previously, 400 mg/1 of total dissolved solids
represents a general threshold guideline for distinguishing the possible ef-
fects of salinity on the aquatic biota. Although total dissolved solids oc-
casionally exceeded 400 mg/1 below Billings during low-flow periods, these
occurrences were quite rare and would not be expected to adversely influence
the river's biota on a long-term basis.
In addition to the increase in total dissolved solids concentrations to
Custer, a downstream change in chemical composition is also evident in the
Laurel -to-Custer reach of the Yellowstone River. This alteration represents
a general reversal of the trends described for the upper river. In the upper
segment, the water tends to become more calcium bicarbonate towards Laurel
with tributary inputs generally negating the water quality characteristics
originating in Yellowstone National Park. Below Laurel, the proportions of
sodium and sulfate in the river tend to increase to Custer. These changes can
be illustrated by Ca/Na and HCO3/SO4 ratios as follows in table 34.
TABLE 34.
Proportions of sodium and sulfate in the Yellowstone River
below Laurel .
Ca/Na
HCO3/SO4
Low Flows
High Flows
Low Flows
High Flows
at Corwin Springs
0.79
1.00
2.18
5.08
at Laurel above
the Clarks Fork
1.51
2.36
3.73
5.71
near Laurel below
the Clarks Fork
1.65
2.31
2.33
3.87
at Billings
1.49
1.72
2.12
3.83
at Huntley
1.44
1.46
1.88
2.45
at Custer
1.37
1.60
1.78
2.72
NOTE: Measurements expressed in mg/1.
inn
Both ratios tend to increase from Corwin Springs to Laurel above the Clarks
Fork, but then tend to decline downstream in the mainstem below Laurel. This
is a probable reflection of the more sodium sulfate type of streams with prairi
drainages that join the river below Laurel in contrast to the calcium bicarbon
ate type of tributaries that drain the mountainous areas of the upper reach.
The influences of the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River (above Laurel versus the
point near Laurel below the Clarks Fork) in increasing the proportion of sul-
fate in the mainstem while not affecting its sodium levels are quite distinct.
This tributary tends to have a calcium sulfate type of water (Karp et al . 1976?
In addition, the two ratios are highest during the high-flow periods when in-
fluences from the upstream calcium bicarbonate tributaries would be most pro-
nounced in relation to the magnitude of the downstream inputs with their sodiui
sulfate types of waters.
In contrast to total dissolved solids, suspended solids-turbidity con-
centrations are directly related to the magnitude of flow. As a result, tur-
bidity-TSS levels in the river below Laurel were low during the low-flow
seasons and markedly increased during runoff periods. Thus, these physical
factors tended to detract from the better water quality that occurs during the
high flows as a result of the reduced total dissolved solids concentrations.
In general, turbidity-TSS levels tended to be higher in the reach of the river
below Laurel than for the mainstem above the Clarks Fork River at Laurel
(tables 28 and 30). However, given the purported sediment load of the Clarks
Fork Yellowstone River (Beartooth Resource Conservation Development Project
et al . 1973), this increase was not as distinctive as might be expected,
averaging 20 percent and 23 percent for turbidity and TSS, respectively, at
low flows, and averaging 93 percent and 108 percent at high flows. In ad-
dition, although not totally consistent from site to site through all seasons,
these parameters also continued to increase downstream through the Laurel-to-
Custer segment.
For the most part, turbidity was not at adequate levels in the Laurel-to-
Custer segment to preclude the use of this water as a public supply. Only a
few samples had turbidities in excess of 75 JTU (table 9), and these were most
commonly collected during high flows, although occasionally high turbidities
were also obtained during most seasons through the stations. The occurrences
of high turbidity were much more frequent in this reach of the river than up-
stream; this is suggestive of a less suitable source for municipal use in term^
of water treatment costs. The sporadic collections of high turbidity samples
were probably associated with runoff events in the surrounding drainage below
Laurel, e.g., from the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River and from Pryor Creek
(Karp et al . 1975b). The turbidity problem was most pronounced in the Yellow-
stone at Custer, particularly during the flay-to-July period when median levels
were in excess of the 75 JTU reference value.
The major effect of TSS in this reach of the Yellowstone appears to be
related to aesthetics and to a potential degradation of the Yellowstone salmon
id fishery. Bishop (1974) suggests that the high spring sediment loads of the
Clarks Fork River and the Yellowstone near and below Laurel generally eliminate
these stretches of water as spawning grounds for trout; the salmonids require
gravel bars that are relatively free of sediment for the successful incubation
of redds (Peters 1962). This then may account for the general decline of the
trout fishery between Laurel and Huntley (Karp et al. 1976b, Marcuson and
Bishop 1973), although temperature may also play an instrumental role.
101
However, other fish species are not as sensitive to sediment as trout in terms
of their spawning activities, and these, therefore, could establish a resident
population within this reach if sediment levels are not delimiting for other
reasons. As noted, this fishery would probably be warm-water in character; a
downstream increase in the proportion of warm-water species along with a cor-
responding decline in the salmonid forms has been observed for the Laurel -to-
Custer segment of the river (Karp et al. 1976b).
Sediment levels during low-flow periods enable the Yellowstone to serve
as an excellent fishery immediately below Laurel, and good-to-moderate below
Billings. However, at high flows the fishery would be fair-to-poor at all
locations (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission 1965). As described
previously, fish may be able to survive temporary slugs of high sediment con-
centrations (e.g., during a high-flow period) but not sustained applications
at high levels. As a result, the yearly median sediment concentration at a
location may provide an index to assess the overall intensity of sediment ex-
posure according to the classification scheme of the European Inland Fisheries
Advisory Committee (1965). Using this index, the Yellowstone River should
provide a good-to-moderate fishery in the Laurel-to-Huntley segment with an-
nual median TSS levels ranging between 58 and 88 mg/1 , while providing a fair
fishery in the vicinity of Custer with a yearly median on the order of 108
mg/1. Potential pollutive influences from the Billings area on this Laurel -
to-Custer fishery are considered in another report (Karp et al. 1976b).
A major portion of the Yellowstone reach below Laurel has been classified
a B-Do stream, i.e., a warm-water fishery (Montana DHES undated). This is in
accord with the temperature characteristics of the stream at Billings des-
cribed previously and in accord with the high maximum, warm-weather tempera-
tures obtained throughout the reach (tables 30-33). Oxygen concentrations
are also appropriate for this designation and for a B-D-j stream (table 8), as
minimum DO's were well above 5.0 mg/1 and always in excess of 7.0 mg/1. Med-
ian DO's were very near saturation (96 percent) and varied between 85 percent
and 111 percent. Similarly, pH values were in accord with the criteria for a
B-D3 stream. Thus, neither extremely high pH's nor extremely low pH's (i.e.,
>9.0 or <6.0) would negate any beneficial river uses. During high-flow per-
iods, pH tended to be lowest, in association with the low total alkalinities
at these times.
Median phosphorus concentrations in the Laurel -to-Custer segment of the
Yellowstone were higher in the spring and during the high-flow period than in
the summer and winter. With the exception of the Billings station (table 31),
the March-July pulse of phosphorus first observed in the river at Laurel
(table 28) was also evident downstream to Custer. During the summer high-
growth period and during winter, phosphorus levels generally increased down-
stream below Laurel. At Laurel and Billings during these two seasons, phos-
phorus concentrations in the river were less than the reference criteria
diagnostic of eutrophic conditions (tables 30 and 31); however, phosphorus
exceeded this value (0.05 mg P/l) at Huntley and at Custer (tables 32 and 33),
although lower than the criteria established by the EPA (USEPA 1974b). In
terms of nuisance algal blooms, the development of high phosphorus levels
would be more critical during the summer months than during the dormant winter
season. Median phosphorus concentrations were generally in excess of the
EPA's (1974b) reference criteria (0.1 mg P/l) during the March-to-July period
at all stations.
102
These aspects suggest eutrophic conditions in the Yellowstone below Laurel
at most stations during most seasons. However, median nitrogen concentrations
were typically below the reference value for this parameter, possibly preventing
the development of nuisance plant growths. Nitrogen did not exhibit any dis-
tinct downstream trends, although concentrations appeared to be highest in the
mainstem at Custer. Nitrogen levels v/ere lowest during the summer period of
high biological activity and nutrient uptake, and highest during the cold weath-
er period. The Laurel-to-Custer segment appears to be nitrogen-limited and non-
eutrophic at present, but this reach is much closer to eutrophy than the stretch
of water above Laurel. The Laurel-to-Custer reach appears to be particularly
vulnerable to eventual eutrophication if nitrogen inputs to the river are in-
creased. Of the eight sites considered so far, the Yellowstone at Custer is
the most representative of eutrophic conditions.
In association with the high percentage of DO saturations, the low BOD5
values of the Laurel-to-Custer segment indicate the general absence of exten-
sive organic pollution. This is confirmed by the generally low median TOC (less
than average) and COD concentrations (table 36). However, this effect appears
to be slightly more prominent in this reach than in the upper river, possibly in
response to influences emanating from the more urbanized Laurel-Billings areas
(e.g., wastewater treatment plant discharges). These aspects can be illustrated
as follows in table 35.
TABLE 35. BOD5 values and median TOC and COD concentrations above
Laurel and in the Laurel-to-Custer reach.
River Reach
Average Number Samples Uniquely High
BOD5 B0D5>5 mg/1 B0D5 Values Median TOC Median COD
Above Laurel
Laurel-to-
Custer
1.9 mg/1 2 6.1 mg/1 5.6 mg/1 11 mg/1
7.0, 8.1,
2.2 mg/1 6 to 8 and 9.3 mg/1 6.4 mg/1 19 mg/1
The problem of organic pollution is discussed more fully in a report prepared
by the state WQB (Karp et al . 1976b).
Trace element and minor constituent concentrations in the Yellowstone be-
tween Laurel and Custer are presented in table 36. This summary involves an
amalgamation of sites as described for the upper river in order to increase the
data base of each parameter. The data in table 36 indicate the absence of sev-
eral potential water quality problems from the stream:
1) synthetic detergents (MBAS values wery low);
2) cyanide (generally undetectable);
3) oil and grease (values typically near zero and less than state standards;
4) organic pollution (TOC and COD concentrations low);
5) aesthetics-color (color usually unnoticeable to the human eye); and
6) ammonia (low levels of the non-ionic toxic form).
103
TABLE 36. Suroary of trace element and miscellaneous constituent concentration measured in the Yellowstone River between Laurel and Custer
Yellowst
>ne River near Lau
and at Bi
■el (Duck Creek
lings
Bridge)
Yellowstone t
iver at Huntley
and at
Custer
Total Recoverable Metals and
Miscellaneous Constituents
N Min Max Med
N
Dissolved Meta
Min Max
s
Med
Tot
Ml
\
1 Recoverable Met
cellaneous Consti
Min Max
alsb and
tuents
Med
N
Dissolved Metal
Min Max
sc
Med
Cn
9 0.0
0.01 0.0
COD
16
4 68
19
Color
27 0
27 3
5
1 6
4
DO4
18
85 111
96
MB AS
12 0.0
0.03 0.0
12
0.0 0.02
0.0
NH--N
56 0.0
2.4 0.05
28
0.0 0.58
0.12
OSG
12
0 7
0
Phenols
4 <.001
0.002 0.002
2
0.002 0.003
0.003
Si
86 8.7
20 14
4
10 14
13
TOC
2 2
8 5
17
2.2 16
6.6
Ag
14
0.0
.002
0.0
4
0.0
.001
.0005
Al
3
.096
.200
.200
As
3 <-001
0.016 0.010
15
0.0
.060
.007
4
.001 .022
.010
4
.003
.010
.009
B
10 <.10
0.17 <.10
64
0.009
0.504
0.170
12
<.10 0.30
0.14
4
.106
.228
.137
Ba
6
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
Be
1
<.01
12
0.0
.007
0.0
Cd
11 <.001
<.01 <.001
17
0.0
.001
0.0
14
<.001 <.01
'.001
4
0.0
.001
0.0
Co
1
<.01
9
0.0
.001
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cr
13 0.0
<.01 0.0
7
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
0.0 <.01
<.01
Cu
11 <.01
<.01 <.01
16
0.0
.042
.004
20
<.01 0.05
<.01
4
.007
.025
.012
Fe
11 0.14
4.9 0.62
71
0.0
0.374
0.04
19
0.24 9.3
1.5
4
.040
.211
.084
Hg
8 <.0002
<.001 <.0002
(.33?)
8
0.0
.0003
.0001
9
0.0 0.001
<.0002
Li
3 0.03
0.75 .050
1
__
<.01
Ml
11 <.01
0.21 0.05
15
0.0
.060
.011
19
.10 .03
.39
4
.011
.063
.029
Mo
16
0.0
.008
0.0
4
.002
.011
.004
Ni
16
0.0
.008
.002
4
0.0
.015
.002
Pb
9 <.01
<.05 <.05
17
0.0
.014
0.0
16
<.01 <.l
■ .05
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
Se
1
<.001
4
.006
.040
.009
5
<.001 0.003
0.002
Sr
7 <-03
0.28 0.23
8
.140
.530
.408
9
0.03 0.70
0.30
4
.336
.510
.455
V
9 <.05
<.5 <.10
6
.001
.006
.001
10
<.05 0.27
<.l
4
.0009
.003
.0016
Zn
11 <.01
0.02 <.01
17
0.0
.047
.017
19
<.01 0.11
<.01
4
.021
.052
.037
NOTE: Measurements expressed in mg/1.
aD0 expressed as percentage of saturation.
bBe:<.01,N=l; Co:<.01,N=l.
cBe:<.001,N=2.
104
However, ammonia-N may contribute more significantly to the eutrophic potential
of the Laurel -to-Custer reach than upstream as inorganic (NO2 + N03)-N concen-
trations were close to the critical reference criteria in the downstream segment.
In addition, the TR levels of several metals indicate that these trace elements
pose no problems to any of the water uses. This includes boron (irrigation), Be,
Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Pb, V, and Zn. This is substantiated by the low dissolved con-
centrations of these constituents, and on this basis, Ag, Ba, Li, Mo, Ni, and
Se might also be eliminated from consideration as possible water quality pro-
blems.
Median silica concentrations in the Laurel-to-Custer segment were similar
to those observed in the river at Laurel and about equal to the national average
for surface waters (Davis 1964). Strontium levels, on the other hand, tended to
increase downstream from Corwin Springs. Median Sr concentrations were somewhat
higher than the average levels in major North American rivers (0.06 mg/1) (Durum
and Haffty 1963), and higher than the median content of the larger public water
supplies (0.11 mg/1) (Hem 1970). However, strontium has not generally been
known to be toxic (McKee and Wolf 1974); the major interest in this element lies
in its chemical similarity to calcium and in its radioactive Sr-90 isotope which
can replace calcium in various biochemical reactions. However, the concentra-
tions of strontium in the Yellowstone do not appear to be at adequate levels to
allow its Sr-90 proportion to constitute a water quality hazard. For example,
Sr-90 is a beta emitter, and dissolved gross beta levels in the Yellowstone at
Billings (ranging between 2.5 PC/1 and 7.8 PC/1 with a median of 4.3 PC/1) were
below the criteria established for the State of Montana (table 8) and well below
the desirable level established by the NTAC (1968) for surface water-public sup-
ply (table 9). In addition, Sr levels in the Yellowstone were much lower than
concentrations in some natural waters that have been utilized as a domestic
supply (e.g., 52 mg/1) (Hem 1970). McKee and Wolf (1974) point out that the
major hazard of Sr-90 "... lies not in direct consumption but in plants and
fish that accumulate this element."
The high arsenic and mercury levels described for the upper Yellowstone are
apparently carried into the Laurel-to-Custer reach of the river (table 36).
However, arsenic does not appear to be a water quality problem in this section
as its dissolved concentrations were generally below the Public Health Service
(1962) drinking water standard and far below the criteria for freshwater aquatic
life (USEPA 1973). In contrast, the median dissolved concentration of mercury
was again above the average level recommended for the aquatic biota (as observed
for the upper river), and grab sample concentrations also occasionally exceeded
this criteria as well as the standard for surface-municipal supply. A review of
the water quality data from the Yellowstone below Custer indicates that detec-
table mercury levels are also present in the lower river. As a result, mercury,
along with the phenols and fecal coliforms, appear to represent the major water
quality problems in the Laurel-to-Custer segment of the river.
As indicated in tables 30-33 , median fecal coliform levels were often in
excess of the state's criteria for the average number of organisms that should
be present at any B-D stream location, and grab samples were also often in ex-
cess of the maximum criteria for this parameter (Montana DHES undated), parti-
cularly at high flows. But median fecal concentrations were generally less than
the more lenient NTAC and EPA criteria (table 9) for surface water and municipal
supply. In comparison to the upper river, markedly high fecal levels were
105
occasionally obtained (>2000 colonies per 100 ml) that exceeded even these
latter standards. These violations become progressively more common in a down-
stream direction as the river passes through the urbanized areas of Laurel and
Bill ings.
In addition to the coliform problem, early water quality surveys of the
Yellowstone revealed a flavoring of fish flesh and drinking water in this seg-
ment, attributed to high concentrations of phenolic compounds (Montana Board of
Health et al . 1956, Spindler undated). With the recent development of better
wastewater treatment systems at oil refineries in the Laurel-Billings area
(Montana DHES 1972), the concentrations of phenols now appear to be at border-
line levels in the river in relation to these taste and odor problems (table 19]
However, phenol levels in the Laurel-to-Custer reach are still in excess of
drinking water and public supply criteria (USEPA 1973, USDI 1968, USDHE1J 1962)
and are also in excess of the EPA's (1974b) national inventory, reference cri-
teria (USEPA 1974b). In consideration of fecal coliform and phenol violations,
the state WQB is completing a waste load investigation of the Yellowstone be-
tween Laurel and Huntley where these parameters form the focal point of the
allocation (Karp et al . 1976b). With the operation of a new secondary sewage
treatment plant at Billings, and with the continued improvement of oil refinery
effluents, the fecal coliform and phenol problems may ultimately decline to non-
critical levels. For the time being, however, these parameters are real pro-
blems in the Yellowstone River.
Overall concentrations of trace elements tended to increase downstream
below Corwin Springs. This can be illustrated by the median TR and dissolved
(Dis) concentrations of Sr, Fe, and Mn as follows in table 37.
TABLE 37. Median TR and dissolved concentrations of Sr, Fe, and Mn
below Corwin Springs.
Dissolved Concentrations
A B C D A
Strontium
Iron
Manganese
NOTE: A, B, C, and D represent sequential downstream reaches of the river.
Regardless of such increases, most of the trace elements do not appear to pre-
sent a water quality problem to the lower sections. The greater TR over dis-
solved concentrations in a sample are illustrated by the Fe and Mn data; how-
ever, this does not apply to Sr for some unknown reason. Downstream increases
in TR (and thereby dissolved levels) are possibly related to the downstream in-
creases in suspended sediment. In turn, the high maximum TR concentrations of
Fe and Mn were generally obtained in conjunction with the occurrence of high
sediment loads. Of the various metals, the concentrations of Fe and Mn were
typically the highest, affording the greatest probability of exceeding water
quality criteria. A comparison of the above TR concentrations to various stan-
dards suggests that Fe and Mn levels did exceed many of the reference values;
this is not borne out by their dissolved concentrations, which were typically
A
B
C
D
0.208
--
0.408
0.455
0.020
—
0.04
0.084
0.013
--
0.05
0.029
106
less than the criteria for municipal supply, stockwater, irrigation, and aquatic
life. Thus, these trace elements do not appear to detract from the river's qual-
ity, even though they can exhibit high TR levels. This is illustrative of the
fact that high TR concentrations are only suggestive of possible water quality
problems, meriting careful consideration and interpretation.
As indicated previously, radiochemical data from the Yellowstone River at
Billings (USDI 1 966-1 974b ) point to a general absence of this type of problem
in the stream. This is also the case for the herbicides and pesticides. Similar
to the gross beta concentrations, dissolved radium concentrations were well be-
low the state and NTAC criteria for this parameter (tables 8 and 9); Ra-226
ranged between 0.01 PC/1 and 0.11 PC/1 with a median of 0.055 PC/1. Dissolved
uranium concentrations ranged between 0.16 yg/1 and 3.2 yg/1 with median of 1.7
yg/1. Of the 761 individual pesticide and herbicide analyses (fourteen para-
meters) on samples from the Yellowstone near Laurel and at Billings, only 1.05
percent demonstrated detectable levels, about 3.5 times greater than the detec-
tion success at Corwin Springs. The parameter most commonly detected was 2,4-D
(with a range of 0.02 yg/1 to 0.42 yg/1 and a median of 0.045 ug/1 at N=6).
Also detected were 2,4,5-T (0.01 yg/1) and DDT (0.01 yg/1) in single samples.
All of these concentrations are well below levels that have been shown to di-
rectly affect rainbow trout (McKee and Wolf 1974), e.g., 2.2 mg/1 for 2,4-D
and 24 to 74 yg/1 for DDT.
MISCELLANEOUS TRIBUTARIES
A number of small streams join the Yellowstone River between Laurel and
Custer. Some partial chemical data are available for most of these creeks as a
result of the state WQB's waste load allocation investigation of the ma ins tern
(Karp et al . 1976b), but this information was not reviewed for this inventory.
Complete chemical analyses were performed on single grab samples from three of
these streams as summarized in table 38, which also includes data from a small
tributary to Pryor Creek. These data should provide some insight into the type
of water that enters the mainstem via these small streams. Of the four streams,
Canyon Creek is unique, as it receives irrigation return flows originating from
the Yellowstone River. As evident in table 38, this factor probably produces
a dilution of its natural quality. For example, total dissolved solids levels
in Canyon Creek are only slightly higher than those in the Yellowstone near
Laurel .
Temperature, pH, turbidity-TSS, DO, and B0D5 values of single samples from
each stream are not suggestive of pollutive conditions in their drainages. In
addition, phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations did not indicate eutrophic con-
ditions. In contrast, the few data that are available consistently indicate
the occurrence of high fecal coliform concentrations in these streams in excess
of state standards; this may produce a cumulative fecal loading on the mainstem
which corresponds to the downstream increase in this variable. Most noticeable
in these tributaries, except in Canyon Creek, are the high dissolved solids-
specific conductance levels, suggestive of a generally poor water quality.
However, the small flows of these streams probably preclude most water uses
other than stock watering. On the basis of TDS, these streams might be rated
generally good for stock watering. However, East Fork Creek is unsuitable, and
Duck and Spring creeks may also be unsuitable as sulfate concentrations were in
107
TABLE 38. Summary of the physical parameters measured in Spring, Duck, and
Canyon creeks (minor Yellowstone tributaries), and in East Fork Creek (a minor
tributary to Pryor Creek).
Spring Creek
Duck Creek
Canyon Creek
East Fork Creek
Flow
1.39
1.58
260
2.0
Temp
16.0
171
--
10.5
pH
8.17
8.38
7.80
8.30
SC
2410
2903
494
5030
TDS
1895
2298
366
4567
Turb
--
--
--
4
TSS
9
1.5
73
16
DO
12.1
12.1
10.9
9.9
BOD
3.1
2.5
--
2.3
FC
800
3450
—
>1000
Ca
104
164
40
228
Mg
58
95
18
243
TH
500
800
172
1570
Na
K
SAR
380
390
35
800
7.4
6.0
1.2
8.8
HC03
293
283
156
430
TA
241
236
128
363
S04
1053
1358
109
2820
CI
F
N
2.5
6.0
7.7
40
0.79
0.02
0.04
0.0
P
0.01
<.01
0.06
0.01
NOTE: Measurements expressed in mg/1
excess of the limiting level for stock (tables 10-14). In turn, these waters
would be unfit for human consumption and would be Class II type waters for irri-
gation given their high SAR values and TDS concentrations.
The potential cumulative effect of these small streams on the mainstem is
most obvious in terms of high TDS and specific conductance levels. Several such
sequential inputs would act to increase the TDS levels of the Yellowstone. For
example, ten tributaries having the flow and chemical characteristics of Duck
Creek in table 38 could increase the TDS concentration of the mainstem about
three percent to four percent from that in the river near Laurel. In addition,
the sodium sulfate nature of these small streams is in accord with the gradual
increase in the proportion of these parameters from Laurel to Custer in the
mainstem.
PRYOR, ARROW, AND FLY CREEKS
These streams also join the Yellowstone in its Laurel -to-Custer segment.
Next to the CI arks Fork Yellowstone River, Pryor Creek is the major tributary
108
through this reach, and, therefore, it could have a significant effect on main-
stem water quality. However, very little water-quality information is available
on Pryor Creek other than that collected by the state WQB as part of its water-
quality management plans (Karp and Botz 1975). Samples were collected from the
stream's upper drainage and from a station near its mouth at Huntley; however,
data from these samples were insufficient to allow for a seasonal or flow-based
classification of the creek's quality.
Fly and Arrow creeks have lower discharges than Pryor Creek and may be con-
sidered intermediate tributaries in the Laurel -to-Custer segment, as they have
higher flows than such streams as Duck and Spring creeks. Adequate data are
available on Arrow Creek through a state WQB irrigation return flow sampling
program to allow for a flow classification of the stream's quality, but detail
is insufficient for a seasonal separation. Most water quality information for
these Laurel -to-Custer tributaries is available on Fly Creek since the USGS has
maintained a monitoring station on this stream for several years (table 3).
This allowed for a seasonal classification of the water quality data from Fly
Creek as applied to the Yellowstone River.
Data on the minor constituents and trace elements in these tributaries were
relatively sparse, both in the number of parameters analyzed and in the number
of analyses per parameter. As a result, these data from the streams were combin.
to provide one statistical summary (table 39). With the exception of a few
occasionally high readings for some of the metals (e.g., zinc), most of the tract
elements do not appear to be at levels sufficient to suggest water quality pro-
blems. As observed on the mainstem, median iron and manganese concentrations
were high, but it should be noted that these were TR levels and should be con-
sidered in that context. For example, dissolved iron concentrations in Fly
Creek were well below the various water quality criteria, but dissolved mangan-
ese concentrations were high and exceeded the standards for drinking water and
surface water supply (although they were at levels safe for other uses). Si 1 ice
concentrations in Fly Creek equalled the national average for surface waters,
and the water in this creek was generally uncolored. However, TOC levels in
Fly Creek were higher than in the mainstem, indicating a greater than average
concentration of organic matter, but this was not reflected in the BOD levels
of the creek. Therefore, although the high manganese concentrations may degrade
water quality, major water-quality problems in these tributaries are apparently
related to the high concentrations of certain major parameters (tables 40 and 41
Fecal col i form concentrations in Pryor Creek and the intermediate streams
were high and occasionally in excess of state standards; pH and DO levels in the
streams were within state criteria and did not indicate pollution. Median B0D5
levels were probably higher overall than those in the mainstem, but they were
less than 5.0 mg/1 in all cases and did not suggest extensive organic pollution.
With the exception of Arrow Creek at high-flow periods, these tributary streams
were generally non-eutrophic with phosphorus levels below the critical reference
criteria. Nitrogen levels were occasionally high in the streams (in Arrow Creei
and in Fly Creek during the winter), but for the most part, the concentrations
of this parameter were well below the levels that indicate eutrophic conditions.
Grab sample temperatures usually did not reveal any conspicuous values, although
high warm-weather readings were obtained from Pryor Creek on a few occasions;
this is not consistent with the stream's B-D] designation (Montana DHES, undated
109
TABLE 39. Summary of trace element and miscellaneous constituent concentrations
measured in various secondary streams in the Yellowstone drainage between Laurel
and Custer.
Fly C
reek
Fly
Creek plus
other
streams
Miscel laneous
Constituents
and
Dissolved Metal
s
Total Recoverable
Petals
N
Min
Max
Med
N
Min
Max
Med
Color
38
2
40
6
Si
175
5.0
18
14
TOC
3
37
50
37
As
18
<.001
0.02
<.01
B
79
0.010
0.530
0.277
4
<.10
0.56
0.13
Cd
22
<.001
0.001
<.001
Cr
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
Cu
22
<.01
0.02
0.01
Fe
112
0.0
0.70
0.02
21
.10
21
.55
Hg
7
<.001
<.001
<.001
(.007?)
Mn
11
0.0
0.190
0.080
18
<.01
1.7
0.18
Pb
9
<.01
<.01
<.01
(.04?)
V
2
<.05
<.05
<.05
Zn
20
<.01
0.14
0.01
NOTE: Measurements expressed in mg/1
In addition, the consistently high turbidity-TSS levels in Pryor Creek suggest a
poor fishery (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission 1965) which is also
contrary to its B-D"j designation. Although most obvious in Pryor Creek, turbid-
ity-TSS levels could also be high in Fly and Arrow creeks (particularly at high
flows), and this may partially account for the downstream increase in suspended
sediment that occurs in the mainstem towards Custer.
Probably the most obvious water quality attribute of these tributary
streams is their high TDS-specific conductance levels which were two to seven
times higher than those in the mainstem at Huntley (table 32) during low-flow
periods. Sequential inputs of such waters to the Yellowstone probably accounts
for at least part of the downstream increase in TDS between Laurel and Custer.
However, these particular streams would have a greater effect on the mainstem
than Duck Creek, for example, due to their higher flows and greater TDS loads.
The median data for Pryor Creek indicate that this tributary could increase the
winter TDS level in the Yellowstone about nine percent below their confluence
at Huntley. Although these tributaries are non-saline or only slightly saline
(Arrow and Fly creeks at low flows), their waters were very hard and their TDS
concentrations consistently exceeded the recommendations for drinking water and
public supply (table 9). In addition, sulfate concentrations often exceeded
these criteria (particularly at low flows), and turbidities in Pryor Creek were
generally greater than that deemed desirable for this use. As a result, the
waters in these three tributaries are probably not suitable for municipal supply
110
in
UD
TJ
CO
CO
in
CM
O
CM
C 1
ID
10
Ol
O
10
CM
MD
«r
<T.
CO
SI
r-~
ID
in
<3-
CM
fT,
O
O
O
£
in
O
in
X
0
^*
*r
«x>
CO
in
Ol
in
«»
ID
00
CM
10 ro
CO
CTt
o^
vo
"3-
in
CO
in
0
1- S
•—
■—
cd
00
ID
CO
CM
1
1
1
in
CM
CM
CO
«»•
CM
CM
CM
Ol
O
O
0
-—
j^
[*]
0
00
r^
ro
01 c
UD
0
CM
0
en
00
10
CM
' '
o> •«-
IO
01
CTv
CO
ID
0
*r
s- 2:
*r
CO
CM
^r
CM
00
O
O
O
0
3
0
<f z
CO
00
CO
CO
00
O
0
0
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
*d-
md
0
ro
-0
0
ID
co
CM
O
ID
CO
o>
ro
r» O
CD
Of
CO
ID
ID
Cft
ID
OJ
2:
ID
00
ID
<T
^-
O
O —
O
<£
m
O
CO
0
X
<J-
0
*r
O
CO
ID
CO
ro
O
10 ro
o%
0
ID
Ol
ID
.— 2:
r~
■—
00
■■"
r"
CM
ID
"""
ro
CO
■""
■"*
in
r_
'
CO
CO
CO
*~
O
"~
O
^
CO
ro
CO
,_
0
CM
O) c
0
CT>
«d-
0
o>
ID
ID
ro
O
O
Ol '<-
0
01
s- 2:
O
0
CO
ID
*3"
OJ
^3-
CD
O
<_>
3
0
s-
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
■a: z
CO
ro
CD
CO
CO
cn
CO
O
O
CM
ro
0
CT»
CO
00
VD
CM
O
01
CO
ID
O
10
CO
ID
lO
>>2:
CM
00
Ol
CO
10
<3"
CM
CO
O
O
O
Ol
4->
0
0
<X>
ID
0
00
10
ID
0
O
ID
in
CO
CO
CO
00
ID
ID
X TO
CO
o-«
<3-
ID
O
2:
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
CO
0
O
O
-*->
_^
0
ro
_
Ol c
ID
O
0
ID
CO
CO
Ol
^r
0
O
<u —
O
O
CT»
O
0
O
UD
ID
O
CO
CO
ID
ID
ID
0
O
O
l_l
s-
0
>1
D_ ^
^r
CO
CO
ID
ID
*3-
0
00
O
CO
1 TD
CO
O
O
CO
CO
CO
0
ID
*3-
O
O
C 01
CvJ
O
CO
CO
O
1- 2:
CM
CM
CO
r*»
ID
«—
r-
r-
CO
A
ID
CM
CM
ID
CM
1—
CM
CM
CM
CM
O
O
CD
s_
0 s-
O
0
0
O
_* >, X
CO
CO
CO
O
00
O
CT*
O
<3
OJ S- fO
ro
ID
CM
^J-
CO
*r
Ol Q. 2:
cd
CO
*r
CO
CO
*3-
gd
CD
O
O
<_> s-
1- Ol
0
O
0 c c
O
en
O
CX>
CO
O
CO
O
CM
00
0
ro
CD
O
>> T-
CO
O
O
UD
O
in
0
CO
i- oi 2:
O
■3-
CM
0
CO
0
O
O
CD
O- C71
i. ^
0)
O.
Q.
ID ir
md
UD
MD
IO
ID
LO
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
10
lO
ID
10
ID
ro
ID
l£>
3
Q.
-Q
ro
O
E
ISt
i-
0
on
0
*J-
CD
<_>
O
3
OO
0
0
CJ
Ol
X
to
<x.
0
«:
0
""
r-
0.
00
l_
y—
1—
0
CO
U"
C_J
2:
r-
z
^
00
X
1—
00
l_J
u*
3E
O.
Ill
ro
TD
0
Cvj
0
CO
0
0
0
VO
CO
CO
*J
CO
0
O
in
^
VO
CO
00
CT.
Cvj
2:
0
CO
cjv
O
VO
O
*T
CO
in
co
eg
CO
CVJ
CO
O
0;
0
0
in
O
O
X
co
vO
a*
O
0
O
0
O
O
CT>
CO
>, n
*J-
0
crv
0
UO
CNJ
3 -~
~7>
Cvj
CM
CO
CNJ
CVJ
1
1
1
1
1
•—
•—
1**
«T
c^
CO
'
•—
CO
O
0
O
>>
O
fl3 c
DO
CO
O
0
Cvj
0
O
2: t-
O
O
lO
cvj
CO
CO
cn
E
m
co
cn
CO
CNJ
a>
ro
O
CO
0
O
m
in
«3"
■o
O
lO
in
CO
CVJ
CVJ
0
10
*d-
0
00
0
O
oj
CO
10
in
10
U3
CO
2:
1
C\J
CO
CVJ
r~
in
"""
l—
"*■
'
■"
CO
10
CO
in
in
CO
o>
C J
0
0
O
_
0
O
0
^r
0
0
CO
■«- X
0
*j-
CO
0
CTi
CO
o>
VD
vo
S- ra
O
0
VO
vo
<
CM
^
CO
m
CVJ
10
CVJ
■""
"*■
v
■""
■""
CO
*r
r~"
p-'
"*
'
'""
CO
0
0
O
-5
0
O
0
ID
CO
OV
CD
Cvj
0
O
O
vo
0
0
2: 2:
ID
0
CVJ
in
in
CVJ
CO
O
CJV
'
VD
Cvj
O
0
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
CD
O
O
O
CO
z:
CO
co
Cvj
Cvj
CO
CO
CO
O
10
CVJ
-0
0
*j-
VO
0
0
O
C
OJ
O
0
CO
2:
CO
CM
CO
CTl
10
cn
O
0
O
>,
s-
T3
3
0
O
CD
CO
S- X
CO
O
0
0
CD
CO
O
VD
Cvj
JD fO
VO
CO
Cvj
0
CO
CTi
a> 2:
CO
CO
CO
VO
O
O
O
IJ-
s_
m
n c
L.O
CD
CD
O
O
CO
0
0
ai 2:
O
Cvj
CTi
*3-
CO
CD
O
O
>
0
z
^-
„
^.
q.
^.
q.
^
,3.
^.
^.
q.
^
,.,.
„
^_
CO
z
O
O
<3-
«=r
«d-
T3
CD
CO
CO
O
0
OJ
0
0
10
21
CO
0
O
vo
CO
O
O
0
CO
co
Cvj
O
0
O
CO
CD
CO
CO
VO
O
VO
0
av
-□ 2:
CO
VO
0
O
0
O
O
0
vo
O
vO
0
O
0
0
Cvj
^r
O
^-
0
ov
</l 2:
CVJ
10
CD
O
0
Cn
3
=£
0
co
co
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
ID
CT»
UO
CO
<3-
0
O
0
O
O
-3-
*d-
^3-
0
3
JD
co
O
Q
O
Cu
nz
O
a
3
0
O
O
cn
^
=r
CD
<£.
0
t—
a.
in
l_
t—
l_
0
CO
U_
0
2:
l_
~
^
10
nz
*~
l/l
0
lj-
Z
°"
112
if other sources are available. The high TDS concentrations of the streams were
due primarily to sodium, calcium, bicarbonate, and sulfate, the major ionic con-
stituents; relative proportions varied depending upon the stream, reach, and
flow regime. Magnesium concentrations were somewhat higher in these streams
than in the Yellowstone, although fluoride, chloride, and potassium were again
minor constituents in the waters.
The water quality in Pryor Creek is apparently somewhat better in its upper
drainage where the composition is calcium-sodium-bicarbonate; however, TDS levels
were still high even in this creek's headwaters region. TDS concentrations in-
creased downstream to the creek's mouth, accompanied by a shift in ionic propor-
tions so that the stream became, like the Clarks Fork Yellowstone River, more
calcium sulfate in nature with almost equal proportions of the major cations and
the major anions. This is probably a reflection of the inputs of tributaries
such as East Fork Creek (table 38), which have sodium sulfate waters and high
specific conductances. Due to the low sodium concentrations, Pryor Creek has
a low sodium hazard for irrigation; this, and its medium-to-high salinity hazard
and low boron levels indicated that Pryor Creek has a borderline Class I — 1 1 water
for irrigation. As a result, this water should be applied cautiously to salinity-
sensitive forage and crop plants. However, the water in Pryor Creek is excellent
for watering stock animals.
Water quality in Arrow Creek is definitely related to flow; the stream
shows a 50 percent to 60 percent reduction in salinity with a better water qual-
ity during the high-flow periods. With discharge in excess of 16 cf s , the water
in Arrow Creek has a calcium bicarbonate composition, but during low flows the
stream is sodium sulfate in character. These features may reflect the irriga-
tion return flows that enter the creek. These returns would tend to increase
the creek's flow, dilute the stream's initial quality, and alter its ionic
character from a sodium sulfate water to one more characteristic of the original
source of the irrigation water (e.g., the calcium bicarbonate type of water in
the Yellowstone River). Thus, in small prairie streams such as Arrow and Canyon
creeks, irrigation return flows probably have a beneficial effect in increasing
discharge and in improving an otherwise naturally poor water quality. As a
result, although the water quality in Arrow Creek is probably excellent during
all seasons for stock, it is more beneficial during the high-flow irrigation
return flow periods.
Of the three Laurel -to-Custer tributaries, the more eastern Fly Creek
(table 41) has the poorest water quality, but only because of its high salinity
levels. Although based on slight evidence, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
BODc, and most trace element levels (except manganese) did not indicate water
quality problems in the drainage. In addition, TSS and fecal coliform concen-
trations are not at particularly high concentrations in comparison to those
observed in other streams, such as Pryor Creek and in the Yellowstone River at
Huntley. The major water quality problem in Fly Creek, TDS, is definitely flow-
related, with a better quality evident during high-flow periods. Surprisingly,
highest flows were obtained during the summer-early fall, perhaps reflecting
irrigation returns (Durfor and Becker 1964). The waters in Fly Creek are sod-
ium sulfate in nature during all seasons, although this is most prominent during
the low-flow winter-spring seasons when irrigation returns would be at a minimum.
The downstream increase in the proportions of sodium and sulfate in the Yellow-
stone mainstem is probably related to the sequential inputs of tributaries such
113
as Fly Creek. During high flows, the water in Fly Creek is applicable to all
stock, but this use may be curtailed during the November-to-March period as
sulfate concentrations in the stream approach levels limiting to animals at
this time (approaching 1000 mg/1) (tables 10-14). This is another example of
the beneficial aspects of irrigation return flows reaching these small prairie
streams.
Using only the May-to-October data, Fly Creek has a high salinity hazard
for irrigation, but low sodium and boron hazards (tables 15 and 16). However,
with the high TDS and sulfate concentrations, this stream is best classified
as Class II, which should not be applied to salinity-sensitive plants. As spe-
cified by the EPA (1976), TDS concentrations of 500-1000 mg/1 indicate ". . .a
water which can have detrimental effects on sensitive crops." In addition, the
salinity levels in Fly Creek, as well as in Arrow and Pryor creeks, are approach-
ing concentrations which may affect freshwater biota. Median TDS concentrations
in Fly Creek during the winter and spring definitely exceed the maximum value
that allows for the support of a good mixed fish fauna (Ellis 1944). As a result
the biotic structure and composition of these saline streams might be consider-
ably different from that in streams with much lower TDS concentrations. Along
with the high TSS levels (and the possibility of high summer temperatures), the
high salinity levels would also operate against the designation of Pryor Creek
as a B-D-j class water.
LITTLE BIGHORN RIVER DRAINAGE
LITTLE BIGHORN RIVER MAINSTEM
The Little Bighorn River is the major tributary of the Bighorn River in
Montana. Considerable water quality information on the river is available from
the USGS, and this has been supplemented by state WQB collections in the drain-
age (table 6). The USGS maintains two water quality sampling stations on the
Little Bighorn--one near Wyola (near the Montana-Wyoming state border) and one
near Hardin near the confluence of the stream with the Bighorn River. A stretch
of river about 50 miles long separates the two USGS stations.
As illustrated in table 42, a good-to-excellent water quality enters Montana
from Wyoming via this river. The upper Little Bighorn River is classified as a
B-D] stream; dissolved oxygen, pH, and fecal col i form levels in the stream near
Wyola were well within the state standards for this designation. Grab sample
temperatures were also generally within this criteria, although a few tempera-
tures during the summer exceeded 19.4°C. These factors, along with the low
B0D5 levels of the water samples, indicate no pollution problems in the river's
upper drainage.
Total dissolved solids in the Little Bighorn were inversely related to flow,
but TDS concentrations and specific conductance levels in the upper stream were
low even during the periods of reduced discharge. For example, TDS concentration:
in the upper Little Bighorn River were only about 6.7 percent to 8.7 percent
higher than those in the Yellowstone at Custer during the low-flow August-to-
February period, and about 18 percent to 29 percent higher during the high-flow
period of March-to-July. The waters in the upper Little Bighorn had a predomi-
nantly calcium bicarbonate composition during the entire year. Sodium and
magnesium, the secondary cations, were found in nearly equal concentrations;
114
in
CNJ
CM
-o
vO
CNJ
O
cn
*r
0
CM
O
01
0
CNJ
UN
O
VO
CNJ
00
0
X
«T
£
VO
O
0
CO
«T
CNJ
CNJ
O
CNJ
0
CM
O
O
O
VO
in
CNJ
CNJ
in
ON
cn
CO
CM
VO
CO
00
O
*r
*r
O
>> -o
CO
cd
VO
CNJ
0
O
O
to
O
i- £
CO
«T
CNJ
CNJ
en
m
«T
CM
CM
en
0
0
O
3
^
>,
CTi
<T3 C
*T
*T
cn
*X
<n
0
in
0
cn
O
O
-
0
0
O
on
O
CNJ
en
ro
vO
ON
cn
0
O
a
0
a
O
cn
^
«3-
Cf»
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
a>
o\
CO
0
IT>
*T
z
m
n
cn
cn
ON
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
m
m
ro
ro
ro
ro
CO
ro
ro
ro
ro
■o
O
O
CO
ON
CT*
CM
O
0
O
C
01
CO
CO
CNJ
CO
O
ON
O
s:
F"
CM
CO
10
**
O
in
"■"
CNJ
in
VO
cn
CNJ
cn
CNJ
0
CM
"~
CM
O
O
O
_
m
CM
i- X
O
LO
on
VO
ON
cn
ro
cn
Ol
O
LO
CM
LO
vO
CNJ
CO
CO
0
CM
Ol
CS
CO
cd
<T>
r-
cn
cn
CO
«3-
O
O
O
<r
JE
m
t_ c
0
<o
O
0
*3"
ro
VO
VO
CM
O
O
IT)
CO
CO
0
vO
CO
VO
ro
CM
s: s:
VO
0
CNJ
0
«3"
ON
O
CM
O
O
O
O
VO
n
^T
10
vO
VO
vO
vO
vo
vo
VO
VO
LC
VO
£
O
z
CM
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CM
CM
CM
CM
0"<
O
-o
O
VO
CO
o>
O
ID
CO
O
O
01
ro
en
vO
ON
CNJ
CO
CNJ
CM
£
0
CO
LO
vO
CNJ
VO
CNJ
O
0
C
O
>>
s_
?
«3"
O
CT>
cn
0
in
vO
O
lo
CM
O
LO
O
JO <TJ
ro
O
«3"
en
cn
O
cy>
n
VO
oi s:
*a-
CO
VO
m
CO
en
<3-
CNJ
ro
O
O
O
u-
t.
OI
cn
J2 c
0
CXI
cn
VO
O
0
CT>
O
O
E i-
CO
VO
CNJ
<n
vO
0
oi s:
0
<a-
CNJ
CNJ
0
O
CO
O
O
O
O
>
o
2=
^.
*3"
0
^
cn
C-y
m
cn
cn
cn
CM
ro
ro
ro
—
CM
cy» ■
O
:s
CNJ
CNJ
*3"
CM
O
-o
VO
ON
0
10
vO
o>
VO
O
0
O
OI
vo
CNJ
m
VO
vO
O
s:
O
CO
LT>
C^i
VO
vO
CNJ
CNJ
O
O
0
0
O
cn
cn
CO
O
CM
CO
a*
O
O
O
OJ <o
CO
0
«3"
0
O
CO
-a 2!
CM
CO
vO
<3"
CNJ
en
m
OJ
CM
O
CM
O
0
O
0
u
O
1 -z.
O
vO
CNJ
VO
0
cr»
o\
in
X
O
0
O
CO
O
in
in
cn
CM
—
v s:
VO
«3-
CNJ
CNJ
0
O
CM
CO
0
O
0
O
3
C7i
<
p^
ON
VO
f^
CNJ
■3
CM
O
O
0
0
CNJ
CNJ
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
3
Q.
.O.
ro
0
V/>
OO
a
cr
O
*T
OJ
^
O
Q
C/>
O
0
<_>
T>
ON
<
O
<:
O
""
a.
m
[—
1—
•"
CO
u-
V_3
SI
1—
z
^
1/1
3:
lo
v_>
Z
O-
115
sulfate was the secondary anion. Although the waters were non-saline, they were
very hard (Bean 1962, Durfor and Becker 1964) due to the high calcium and mag-
nesium levels. SAR values were low for this same reason. Chloride, fluoride,
and potassium concentrations were insignificant in the samples, and phosphorus
and nitrogen levels were also remarkably low in comparison to other streams in
the study area and in comparison to their reference criteria. The low phosphorus
and nitrogen levels indicate non-eutrophic conditions in the upper river. On the
basis of the major parameters, therefore, waters in the upper Little Bighorn
River appear to be suitable for the following beneficial uses:
1) stock animals--TDS, common constituents, fluoride, and nitrate-
nitrite concentrations were at below-threshold levels (tables
10-14);
2) irrigation—the water has a low sodium, medium salinity hazard,
and due to the low SAR, chloride, sulfate, and TDS-specific
conductance levels, it is a Class I water suitable for application
to most crop and forage plants (tables 15-17);
3) drinking water and surface water public supply--TDS, fecal col i forms,
nitrate-nitrite, DO, pH, chloride, sulfate, and fluoride levels were
in accord with the permissible criteria, standards, and recommenda-
tions given in table 9; and
4) freshwater aquatic life--TDS concentrations were generally less than
400 mg/1 and consistently less than 670 mg/1.
The low fluoride concentrations in the Little Bighorn indicate the need for ac-
cessory fluoridation in order to reach the optimum level for drinking water
(USDHEW 1962).
Of the major parameters summarized in table 42, the high TSS levels may
detract from the stream's quality to the greatest degree. As observed on the
Yellowstone River, TSS levels were directly related to flow, with highest median
concentrations during the May-to-July high runoff period. Through the remainder
of the year in the upper river, median seasonal concentrations were generally
similar and much lower, although high levels of sediment were obtained spora-
dically during all seasons in response to meteorological runoff events. The
overall sediment levels in the river might have been sufficient to reduce the
value of the stream as a fishery. Using the index described previously to
assess the Yellowstone River, the upper reach of the Little Bighorn probably
has only a fair to moderate fishery, with an annual median TSS concentration
of about 94 mg/1. In addition, although not evident in table 42 due to the
lack of turbidity data, TSS levels in the upper river appeared to be high enough
on some occasions to detrace from its use as a public supply. That is, TSS con-
centrations in excess of 325 mg/1 were obtained during most seasons (e.g., the
maximum concentrations in table 42); using the equation in Karp et al . (1976),
this converts to a turbidity in excess of 75 JTU. This violates the NTAC per-
missible criteria for public supply (table 9).
In terms of median flow, the Little Bighorn River is between 1.2 and 2.4
times larger near its mouth than at the state border, probably due to tributary
inputs to the river below Wyola. The flow differences between sites varied by
factors of 1.3 to 1.6 during the May-to-February period, and it was considerably
greater in March-April (a factor of 2.4). This larger flow increase in the
early spring was probably a reflection of runoff events in these tributaries
116
because prairie streams have their spring flood phase earlier than streams with
a mountainous drainage such as the upper Little Bighorn River. These differ-
ences in flow regimes, in turn, would become evident in the greater dov/nstream
increases in mainstem flows at this time, as illustrated in table 43. In addi-
tion, such relationships should also become evident in the water quality data
since the prairie tributaries generally have a lesser water quality than the
receiving stream.
A comparison of tables 42 and 43 shows a general degradation of water
quality through the 50-mile reach of the Little Bighorn River between Wyola and
Hardin. This is probably related to tributary inputs of inferior quality, but
was manifested primarily by increases in TDS and TSS rather than in parameters
that are more directly descriptive of pollution problems. That is, BOD5, pH,
and DO levels in the lower segment were similar to those in the stream near
Wyola, and, although fecal coliforms increased somewhat downstream, their con-
centrations continued to be less than the state criteria for a B-D stream. The
river's lower segment is classified a B-Do stream, corresponding with the higher
maximum and median temperatures observed there (table 43), along with the greater
frequency of grab sample temperatures exceeding 19.4°C. This change of classi-
fication corresponds to the increase in yearly median TSS concentrations in the
river from Wyola to Hardin (to 154 mg/1), also descriptive of a poorer fishery.
TDS concentrations increased downstream from 27 percent to 43 percent,
depending upon season. The increase was smallest during the summer when tribu-
tary flows were at their lowest, and the increase was greatest in April -March
when the tributaries probably had their high-flow periods. In addition, TSS
concentrations in the mainstem near Hardin were lowest during the summer in
correspondence to the reduced flows of the tributaries. Although TSS concentra-
tions were highest during the spring runoff stage of the Little Bighorn in May-
July, a distinct secondary pulse of sediment was also evident in March-April
near Hardin, but absent upstream, also probably related to the earlier high
flows of the tributaries. Sodium and sulfate levels were exceptionally high
in March-April. As a result, the Little Bighorn River near Hardin, like the
upper reach, was a calcium bicarbonate stream from May to February, but it had
a calcium-sodium-bicarbonate-sulfate type of water in March-April when these
constituents were present on an equivalent basis.
With the exception of fluoride, all of the common constituents tended to
increase in concentration below Wyola to some extent during some season, but
increases in chloride, potassium, calcium, phosphorus, and nitrogen were small.
Thus, the waters in the river remained non-eutrophic throughout its entire
length. The downstream increase in TDS was related primarily to the greater
concentrations of sodium and sulfate in the lower segment, although magnesium
also increased significantly towards Hardin, producing a distinct increase in
hardness. Such increases in TDS and changes in chemical composition may detract
from the use of the lower river as a surface water public supply; this is related
primarily to the high TDS levels, the river's extreme hardness, and the occasion-
ally high turbidity and sulfate levels. The waters still have a low sodium
hazard (low SAR's) and a medium salinity hazard for irrigation (Richards 1954),
but they are probably less applicable to irrigation than upstream waters due
to the higher salinities. The lower river becomes a borderline Class I water
which could affect sensitive species (USEPA 1976). However, salinities probably
would not affect the river's aquatic biota to a large extent, and the stream is
an excellent source of water for all stock animals.
117
ao
CM
CM
■o
o
UD
vO
<X>
o
CO
o
a
CM
o
o
CO
o
o
CO
m
CO
^~
o
s:
en
o
O
00
O
co
CO
o
CO
o
(M
CM
O
o
o
«JD
>» X
in
ID
«X>
o
o
CO
CO
O
o
o
lO
vO
o
CO
m
'B z:
CO
*?
CO
CO
O
o
o
>^
o
^
^_
3£ c
o
«=*-
o
**
lO
o
CD
o
o
o
^r
o
00
CO
o
CO
o
r-.
o
:E
vo
CO
<3-
CNJ
CM
CO
C\J
^r
CO
CSI
CO
CO
o
CO
O
o
CD
■z.
«3"
CO
«d-
«a-
^r
*3"
uo
Cn
ID
vO
-o
CO
vO
«d-
CT»
OO
<3-
<tf-
o
o
o
o
00
o
<=r
E
*a-
co
CO
Cn
lO
•""
•""
CO
■"■
^
^r
CO
p^*
<3-
■—
CM
CM
CM
**"
CD
o
o
o
o
O
o
IT)
CO
(^
en
o
o
lO
O
vO
cm
>X)
i£>
O-S
CM
CO
00
CO
CO
CvJ
CO
CO
O
o
o
«a:
-g
CO
,_
,_
i- c
CO
o
vO
UD
o
o
cn
O
o
CD
m
CO
"d-
o
CO
CO
CO
s: £
CM
o
p***
<x>
**
<=r
C0
CM
*3-
«l
CM
O
o
o
CT>
en
o
cn
cn
CO
en
en
CO
cn
cn
en
CO
en
■ZL
C\J
co
CM
Csj
CM
CO
"O
o
o
CO
KD
o
o
o
o
o
CO
en
CO
o
e:
<—
CD
CO
r-
CM
CO
•—
CM
r*-
■**■
CO
CO
«3-
CvJ
•—
CM
CM
CM
CO
O
o
o
>>
to
O
CO
CC
O
CO
CO
o
O
CD
in
i~ <T3
ro
o
O
cn
lO
-o s:
CO
LT>
UD
UD
o
o
o
OJ
lY
CD C
O
^
co
^_
O
CM
o
CM
cn
O
<3-
^
CD
o
XI f-
O
CO
o
O
en
KD
^r
E EI
GO
o
co
CO
CM
CD
o
CD
ai
>
o
^.
IT)
p^
,_
,_
CO
<3-
CO
r—
,—
CO
•^i-
«=r
.—
«=r
CO
o
«3-
3E
m
^3"
•3-
*t
«=T
*3"
CO
"O
o
O
UD
o
<x>
o
o
o
CD
QJ
cn
CTv
*d-
en
■3"
en
■^3-
o
S
CO
kO
*?
CM
o
o
en
CD
CO
«=r
cn
CTv
o
o
o
CO
CO
o
o
dj ro
en
CTi
O
CO
CO
00
JD E
CO
m
co
CO
o
CD
O
U
o
^
LD
^
u-)
,_
o
en
en
o
CO
o
in
o
o
o
o
**
o
vO
l/l s
lO
UD
<3-
CO
o
o
o
o
o
en
<t
CO
^
r—
lO
00
LT)
CO
CO
en
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
r-
CO
ZL
CNJ
o
CD
O
o
3
e
O
a:
CD
O
o
tT>
O
o
o
en
<
t_)
<:
o
u-
l~
CL
h-
H
H"
Q
CO
u~
O
s:
*~~
z.
^
i/i
X
i—
1/1
118
Some trace element data are also available for the Little Bighorn River
as summarized in table 44. Overall, concentrations were lower than those in
the Yellowstone, indicating an excellent water class. For example, the median
silica level in the Little Bighorn was about 50 percent of that in the Yellow-
stone and well below the national average (Davis 1964). As a result, TSS and
TDS appear to be the major problems detracting from water quality in the Little
Bighorn River, and this appears to be generally true of most streams in the
Yellowstone Basin.
TRIBUTARY STREAMS
Some water quality data are available on various tributaries to the Little
Bighorn River as a result of a state WQB sampling program in the drainage.
These streams are listed in table 44. The data are relatively sparse, however,
and not conducive to a seasonal or flow-based water quality classification. As
indicated in table 44, trace elements in these tributary streams were found in
relatively low concentrations. Many of the TR levels of these constituents were
never found in detectable concentrations in the samples; the metals that were
detected were only occasionally or never observed in excess of water quality
criteria. As examples, boron concentrations were well below the critical levels
that would be detrimental to irrigation, and Co and V were always below the cri-
teria for irrigation, stock water, and aquatic life. The few samples with mer-
cury in detectable levels may be the major exceptions, although concentrations
were not analyzed to adequately low levels to resolve the status of mercury in
relation to the various reference criteria; this applies also to the Little
Bighorn River. Of the metals, Fe and Mn were most commonly found in relatively
high concentrations, but their median concentrations did not exceed any of the
reference criteria. In addition, these were analyzed according to total recov-
erable components and their dissolved concentrations would probably be relatively
low and not indicative of water quality problems.
Levels of pH, BOD, DO, and possibly the fecal col i form levels in most of the
tributary streams do not appear to have water quality problems (table 45). In
addition, all of these streams were non-eutrophic with low nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations; this in turn corresponds to the lack of downstream change in the
eutrophic status of the Little Bighorn. Turbidity-TSS and fecal coliform levels
may pose water quality problems for Pass and Owl creeks, but this does not seem
to be true for Lodge Grass Creek or for the various minor tributaries such as
Reno Creek, where attention focuses primarily on the high TDS concentrations.
The Little Bighorn tributaries had a calcium bicarbonate water (with the
exception of a calcium sulfate water in Lodge Grass Creek), and their ionic
compositions were quite similar to those in the mainstem near Hardin; i.e.,
Mg < Na < Ca and S04 < HCO3 with F and CI insignificant. However, TDS concen-
trations were distinctively higher in the tributaries than in the Little Bighorn,
although a wide range of variation (between 10 percent and 257 percent) was evi-
dent in these comparisons, depending upon the tributary stream, mainstem reach,
and season. On the average, TDS levels in the tributaries were 131 percent
higher than those in the upper reach of the mainstem and 68 percent higher than
those in the Little Bighorn near Hardin. This in turn corresponds to the down-
stream increase in mainstem TDS concentrations. The tributary streams were very
hard with low SAR values, and they created a high salinity hazard for use in
119
,
.
1— CO
O LO
O 1—
-a
0 «3-
0 0 CM c
0 CO
O O
0
O LO O
a>
S-
2:
V
V V
• V
V 0
V 1 0
V
V • V
CD
>
cc ro
1 —
1 — 1 —
1 —
1 —
O O LO
1 —
O CNJ
co
X
CD co
0 0 00
O LO
0 1— 1—
0 0
c cd
ro
• CM
S- -r-
21
V
V V
• V
V CNJ
000
V
V • 0
o s-
-C CO
Oi+J
•r- 3
co
0
r— O
0 r— I—
0 1—
CO jQ
1 — c
O LT)
O O
r- O
O O
000
0
O co 0
rO 1-
• O
ai i-
-!-> 21
V
V V
• V
V V
V V V
V
V • V
■ — +->
CD
-l->
21
+->
•r—
CU
*3-
"3- «d-
CNJ CM
^J-
_J
1 — -z.
CO
s_
LT) CNJ
CM 1—
CM CM
1 '
r-CNJi-
CM
CM CM 1 —
CD
1 — LO
>
1 — CO
O LO
O <—
0 -a
O r—
O O
O
0 0
O r— O
O
O CO 0
0 a>
• 1
• LO
• O •
• 0 •
s-
a> 2:
V •
V V
V 1
V
V • 0
V
V • V
CD S-
a:
> CO
•r- d) s-
cc c ai
ra
O CO
O CN1
_e
+-> X
0 co
0 0
0 0
O LO
0 r— 0
0
O CO 0
c -a +j
O CO
s- t= cd
1— 2:
V
V V
V 0
O CM
0 • 0
V
V • 0
O <0 CD
-C o
Cn CO +->
0
I— 0
O r—
0 r—
OQ O C
c
O LO
0 0
0 0
O CO
O ■— O
0
O CO 0
>■>•--
• 0
• O •
• 0 •
CD 3 "O
2:
V •
V V
V V
V
V • V
V
V • V
r— S-
4-> S_ fO
+-> ro rc
•r- ai
■z.
"3" CM
CM 00 CM
_l c
co
0
-0
CO
0
0
CD
S-
SI
r^
0
0"
0
0)
co
>
fO
Qi
+->
LO
0
CO
c
CD X
CM
0
C T-
ST fO
00
s- -o
2:
0
O
0
o s-
-a
-C fO
CD
en n:
>
cn
O
CO s_
0 c
LO
0
O
0
CO
(/) 1-
a) a)
co 21
^1-
0
O
0
i— c
+->
Q
+->
•O
O
CO
_1
c
«=i-
CM
CO
(O Z
■—
CO
•—
CM
to
+->
c
CD
LO
3
r~»
CM
4-> -O
CM
0
O
O
•1- CD
S-
+-> 2!
r-.
0
O
O
cd
to
>
C
O
0
Q£
O
CM
CO
P»
CO
X
CO
1 —
CD
C i —
CO rO
s- o
3 2!
O
O
O
o >>
O
-C 3
CD
cn
c
•r- S-
to
CO CO
r— S=
CNJ
O
O
O
CD
CD C
CD 21
LT)
O
O
O
<_)
+J
CO
4->
2:
0
CO
_l
CO
r~-
0
CO
z
1
CO
1
CM
CO
CD "O
0 s-
3 CD
OVi- C
-Q
CD C
co
<: co
CO 0
0 0
O U_
I-JZ
D_
CO > Nl
C_> CD
O CD
cno
c
•1- CD
3 cn
o -a
1— o
CD CD
2 CD
a. co
E fO
CO Q-
120
Ul
LO
in
"S
0
^
m
O
lO
0
CNI
°i
rO
O
O
GO
un
cn
0
CO
LQ
CO
ro
r i
^
0
0
ro
on
CO
,—
CO
un
to
•""
CNJ
in
r**
lO
t
r—
«3"
ro
CNJ
O
0
0
0
CjJ
c
*d-
CM
LO
10
CM
0
on
00
00
^j
00
O
0
O
CD — — <T3
*
CNJ
lO
CO
0
ro
LO
LO
•rCQ WE
<13 >» CD
un
•""
CO
*"~
•"
'"-
*—
•—
ro
an
•—
r-'
*T
CNJ
^3-
lO
Lf)
ro
1
0
O
-*-> at oj
3 S- S.
.O O 0 c
0
CNJ
CNJ
O
ro
ro
X
0
CNJ
0
O
<T>
Ul
O
tD
c
ro
u * 0 e:
CO
CO
CO
LO
O
«=r
*3"
i O
CNJ
C\J
CNJ
O
0
c <d
1- -r- a;
0 s-
C Q-TD
E — <Q ^
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro 0 ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
"a
0
LO
CO
c
O
CM
CNJ
0
O
ai
0
00
O
e:
ro
CNI
CO
r—
On
LO
^
*—
CNJ
CO
■—
LO
^J"
CO
1 »—
CNJ
C\J
n
O
0
v
%
-3-
c»
CO
^
us
0*>
CO
on
cr»
on
en
CO
00
0
ai <o
CO
0
0
ro
00
O
a* s:
CO
ro
LO
1 CNJ
c .
LO
0
O
s_
0
CNI
(fl w c
00
0
en
0
LQ
CO
0
O
<3-
O
CO
CO
00
ro
i- s- s:
LO
0
CO
CO
lo
lo
O
on
ro
ro
1 CD
CNJ
0
CD O
a> at
en en
■a -0
0 0
*3-
^
<d-
<=r
<3"
<=r
<d-
^3- O <3"
"3"
LO
m
■0
0
O
C0
0
on
O
O
co
O
m
LO
5- 2:
Cn
CO
en
CO
CM
lO
ro
CM
0
0
T3 ro
c a>
<u
ro
LO
LO
On
LO
O
O
*3"
O
0
CD
O
CO
CNI
O
LO
LO
O
O
O
c 3 cu s:
lo
LO
CO
LO
0
0
■r- 0 OJ
2 - u -—-
-0 ^- t/i
3 i/l ^1 c
O
on
CO
lo
<3-
O
0
0
^0 i/> m •<-
lo
CO
CO
O
O
ro
a ra s- 2:
LO
O
CO*
lO
CO
o>
-=r
1 O
<3"
CO
CM
0
<u cu q_ 0
0 4_> x ai
*-» 3 en
r--r 0"D
3 _J -r- O
0— 'i/i _j zr
LO
LO O LO
O
"O
O
O
CO
— 1
on
CM
CNJ
0
CO
en
CO
0
2:
LO
ID
CO
CO
<X)
«3-
•—
Ol
•—
CO
^
ro
ro
LO C
O —
CNJ
XI
CNJ
r~
O
0
1
0
>»
O
CM
3 X
LO
LO
0
C3N
O
CO
^r
O
O
CD
CO
ro
on
t- 2:
-—
CO
<—
CO
LO
CNJ
1
1
LO
CO
ro
ro
CO
1 CNJ
CNJ
PU
ro
•"
1
0
O
CD
C
CO
r-
O
m
O
LO
CO
O
0
O
OJ -r-
0
0
on
0
oc
*3"
ro
<D E
O
CO
LO
<3-
CO
lO
<NJ
O
CNJ
cn
0
U
<_>
O. 1Z
CNI
~
CNJ
~
CNJ
~
CNJ
-
-
CNJ
CM
<NJ
cm
~ '
- ~
CNJ
CM
CNJ
CNJ
-
CM
CNJ
3
O.
.O
ro
O
E
CD
cc
0
«3"
a>
az
C_>
Q
l/>
O
O
t_>
en
3Z
<c
<_}
tf
O
U"
O.
c/>
1—
1—
a
Li~
O
E
1—
z: i£ on
DZ
*"
\Si
u
"■
:=
121
irrigation (typically Class II waters, tables 15 and 16). Although these streams
apparently have a good-to-excellent water quality for application to all stock
animals, they do not appear to be suitable as a source of drinking water or
public supply because of their high TDS and total hardness levels. In addition,
the salinity levels in these streams were at levels adequate to influence the
aquatic biota (i.e., generally greater than 670 mg/1 ) and to affect salinity-
sensitive crop and forage species. Thus, water quality in the Little Bighorn
River tributaries would probably be judged as only fair, primarily degraded by
salinity factors; this is true of many prairie streams in eastern Montana.
BIGHORN RIVER DRAINAGE
BIGHORN RIVER MAINSTEM
The Bighorn represents a major river system with an extensive drainage in
both Wyoming and Montana; it is the largest tributary to the Yellowstone River.
As a result of its length, a large portion of the Bighorn's water has traveled
considerable distances before it reaches the mainstem. Consequently, it is
susceptible to a variety of factors, including reservoirs, tributary inputs,
evaporation, and point and nonpoint pollution, which may degrade its initial
quality.
The Bighorn River originates in Montana as the outlet from Yellowtail Reser-
voir, and the potential effect of the reservoir on downstream water quality has
been discussed in several papers and reports (Soltero 1971, Soltero et al. 1973).
Due to the dam, the current flow regimes and qualities in the river are probably
not reflective of its natural condition. A few of these effects are readily
apparent in the data summaries prepared for this inventory and will be considered
in later sections in this report.
Although the annual average flows in the Yellowstone River at Billings are
about 44 percent higher than those in the Bighorn at Bighorn (near the Yellow-
stone confluence) (USDI 1974), a large part of this excess is due to the spring
flood, or the mainstem which is largely absent from the Bighorn due to artificial
regulation. Median flows during the May-to-July period, as tabulated for this
inventory, were about 222 percent higher in the Yellowstone at Billings than in
the Bighorn at its mouth for the same period (a 3.22-fold difference). In turn,
during the November-March low- flow periods in the Yellowstone, median Bighorn
flows were actually 13 percent to 18 percent higher than those in the mainstem
at Billings (table 31). As noted, the Bighorn would tend to have a relatively
poor water quality due to its drainage length. Given the high flows of this
stream, it therefore has the potential to exert a significant influence on
Yellowstone mainstem quality. Due to the flow relationships described above,
this influence should be strongest during the late summer, winter, and early
spring when Yellowstone flows are at their minimum.
Water quality data are available from three stations on the Bighorn River
as a part of USGS monitoring programs in the region (table 3). The three sites
are equidistant with an upper station at St. Xavier just below the dam, a middle
location near Hardin, and a lower site near the river's mouth at Bighorn. These
data have been supplemented by a few WQB collections from various locations on
the river. For many of the parameters, the data from the uppermost site (table
46) are representative of quality in the entire length of the stream, as
122
CO
CM
CM
CO
a*
in
CM
0
O
CO
T
CO
O
CO
CvJ
0
0
CD
CO
CM
co en
CO
Ol
O
0
'.
( J
x:
in
kO
^
CO
in
C\J
CO
■""
— cm r—
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
•"
0
0
0
O
CM
IT)
0
CM
^
>* X
in
0
0
0
O
CO
LO
CM
CO
en
0
0
CTt
CO
CO
0
en
CO
CO
Ifl
a E
CM
CO
CO
cn
CO
CM
0
0
0
>%
0
CO
CM
E c
lO
in
O
0
C J
O
CO
0
0
<sO
co
O
CO
CO
en
ro
CO
CO
^
«a-
UD
un
ro
0
*r
*a-
CO
0
0
0
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
0
*r
«d-
«3-
*3"
•y
<3" r
•=3-
*3"
<3-
*r
*3-
en
0
CO
en
•o
CSJ
0
O
CO
Cn
O
CO
CO
*3-
CM
0
<u
0
CM
O
00
CO
s:
CO
CO
OS
CO
CM
1
■"
O
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
T"
CM
r~
O
0
0
O
O
CO
CO
O
0
in
O
CO
CM
CO
CO
■3-
CO
CO
0
CO
CO
cn-
en
CO
o-S
*3"
CO
CO
CO
O
cn
CO
CO
O
0
0
<:
■g
CO
^
_
fc. c
0
00
O
CO
0
O
0
*r
0
0
C\J
CO
Cn
00
s: iE
"
"
*3"
CM
O
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
0
0
0
00
in
CO
CO
CO
0
ro
CM
CM
O
CM O CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
ro
0
O
CM
■o
0
0
en
O
O
O
CO
CO
CM
0
O
cij
CO
«*
CO
CO
en
CO
0
s:
■*--
CO
CO
un
CM
CO
<—
1— CM r-~
CM
CM
r^
ro
CM
•—
»—
CM
r-
O
O
O
>^
S_
0
in
O
CO
CM
3 X
CO
O
en
CO
CO
CO
O
CO
CO
*3-
CM
cn
CO
00
00
en
-o s:
CO
CO
CM
en
CO
CO
CM
CM
0
O
O
cu
LL-
s-
eg
CM
a> c
0
CM
O
0
en
CO
O
0
0
O
O
.O, -r-
T
CO
O
CM
CO
en
e s:
CO
<3-
O
CM
CM
CO
CO
0
O
O
oj
o
2:
<-*">
r^
uo
,_
O
en
cn
CO
en
en
en
en
c
ro
en
en
ro
CP
3=
<3"
«*
«d-
0
O
ro r-~
-0
«=r
CO
eo
m
O
O
,
O
CO
CO
,_
*3"
CO
"2
en
CO
0
0
ro
en
o-
"J
O «T
2:
0
in
0
CM
CO
O
CO
CM
CO
CO
0
O
CO
00
00
CM
Cn
CO
O
O
ro
en
«T
CO
*3"
0
OJ T3
OS
as
0
CO
0
1 CM
CM
CO
0
co
.0 z:
CO
1 en
*3-
CM
0
O
0
0
0
^
LD
0
en
C\J
CM
CO
r^
O
ro
^-
0
m
O
CO-
,—
O
0
CM
CO
O
«3"
«-0 21
cr»
co
en
O
*T
0
O
0
C7>
<
,_
LD
OS
,^
CTi
CO
CO
O
CO
CO
CO
CO
O
CO
00
O
en
CO
*3-
ro
0
ro
CO O <3"
*3"
*3"
CO
*3"
en
3
Ok.
JD
ro
O
E
00
Q
CH
0
<u
^
O
0
3
cn
0
O <-> is
Ol
3Z
<t
c_>
■3;
O
Li
a.
>—
0
CO u_ c_>
Z
l—
z
^
en
I
i—
UO
0
LL.
z
a.
123
downstream water quality changes did not appear to be as great in the larger
river as those in the Little Bighorn.
The Bighorn River has a sodium-calcium-sulfate water throughout its length,
and magnesium and bicarbonate are secondary ionic constituents. Fluoride, chlor-
ide, and potassium were minor constituents (although chloride levels were some-
what higher in the Bighorn River than in the Little Bighorn River). The waters
in the river were very hard and non-saline, although TDS concentrations were
high in comparison to the Little Bighorn and Yellowstone rivers--on the average,
1.43 times higher than the Little Bighorn, 2.64 times higher than the Yellow-
stone at Billings, and 1.95 times higher than the Yellowstone at Custer. The
upper Bighorn showed a direct linear relationship between flow and TDS; this is
generally the opposite of what has been observed in other large streams, and may
be a reflection of reservoir influences which were carried downstream to Bighorn.
Also, the unusually low TSS and turbidity levels at St. Xavier were probably the
result of the reservoir acting as a sediment trap. Dissolved oxygen, BOD, and
pH did not indicate water quality problems anyplace on the river, and fecal coli-
forms and TSS did not indicate water quality problems in the upper reach. All
of these parameters were in accord with state criteria and the state's desig-
nation of the upper segment as a B-D-j stream (Montana DHES, undated). Grab
sample temperatures were also in accord with this criteria because temperatures
were generally less than 19.4°C (table 8). Salinity and potential eutrophica-
tion therefore appear to be the major water quality problems in the upper reach.
The high salinities approach values (670 mg/1) that could affect the aquatic
biota, but the B-D-j designation of the upper reach and its water quality are
reinforced by the purported success of trout fisherman in this segment of the
Bighorn River.
The concentrations of dissolved constituents remained constant throughout
the extensive reach of the Bighorn in Montana; the greatest downstream increase
was in sulfate (tables 47 and 48). As a result, TDS levels increased only
slightly from St. Xavier to Bighorn (less than 11 percent). This suggests that
due to their low flows or to their nearly equal salinity concentrations, the
various Montana tributaries did not affect the river's salinity levels much. On
the basis of these major parameters, the water in the Bighorn is expected to be
excellent for the watering of all stock but unsuitable for municipal supply as
a result of the high TDS and sulfate levels (table 9). Due to the high calcium-
magnesium concentrations, the Bighorn has low SAR values and a low sodium hazard
for irrigation; however, it has a high salinity hazard and is probably a Class
II water that should be used with care in the irrigation of certain plants.
The river's TSS levels increased downstream below St. Xavier. Like the
Little Bighorn, a spring sediment pulse is also evident in the Bighorn at Big-
horn, probably a reflection of tributary inputs with their early spring runoff
periods. As a result of the increase in TSS, the value of the stream's fishery
would be expected to decline downstream. Using the index defined previously,
the upstream fishery would be excellent (having turbidities less than 8 JTU)
but would then become a fair fishery near its mouth, with an annual median TSS
concentration of 120 mg/1 (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission 1965).
This is in accord with the state's classification change of the river from a
B-D-j in the upper reach to a B-D2 stream below Hardin (Karp et al . 1976a).
Median and maximum grab sample temperatures increased towards Bighorn during
the March-to-October period--also in accord with the classification change.
124
O
co
o
00
O
■o
o
cn
Lfl
CNJ
0
0
vO
\£>
^3-
<D
CO
«3-
ON
<JD
00
0
<X>
S
o
o
CO
o
oo
o
CO 1
co
o
CO
CM
CNJ
CO
CNJ
CM
O
0
0
CD—'
>% x
o
CM
00
o
0
ro
O
«J3
CNJ
o
00
CO 1
CD
en
CD
^r
00
CO
CNJ
CO
ro
ro
en
CO
O
0
O
^>
>■>
o
o
CNJ
o
0
as
O
O
0
O
cn
CO
0
-a-
O
X
r—
o
r*"
1
o- 1
1 o\
<3-
CO
CM
O
0
O
<3-
o
ro
ro
i— o
O I—
CO
cn 0 cn
0
in
UO
o
CO «3-
CO
CO
T3
O
o
o
cn
0
0
^o
0
tu
00
o
CO
*J- OJ
CNJ
co
0
en
0
O
CM
*3"
CO
cn
co «a-
""■ ■""
"~
■""
r~"
CM
ro
'"'
CNJ
CNJ
r"
ro
"—
O
0
CD
o
o
o
CM
0
O
o
o
CNJ
o
0
0
ro
0
»JD
o-.
en
**-
o-s:
>JD
CO
Cn 1
CO
CSJ
00
«3-
CD
CD
O
ct
jC
*3-
S- c
o
o
CO
o
en
0
en
CO
O
*3-
*3"
O
o
CO
UD
nD
e: £
o
o
o
cn
O
O
CD
Zl
cn
o
-
-
en .—
- -
-
-
-
-
-
ro 0 cnj
-
ro
0.
cn
CM
CO
00
o
o
CO
CO
TD
o
o
0
cn
O
0
<D
CO
ro
CO
00
CD
S
ro
ro
CO
CO
CO 1
' -—
-—
CO
r^
CNJ
CNJ
r^
1 •—
1
'—
CM
r—
O
0
0
>>
W
o
o
o
o
0
CO
o
«3-
CO
o
0
CNJ
CO
CO
o
cn i
CO
CTi
CO
0
-^ s:
c6
CO 1
ro
O
O
0
tu
Lt-
£
o
^J.
CD
.—
(U c
o
o
as
o
0
CO
O
0
.Q -i-
Cn
1 o
o
ro
en
ro
e s:
o
UD
f*-
in i
o
o
uo
CNJ
CNJ
CO
1 •—
1
•~
CM
ro
O
O
0
>
o
■z.
co
CO
CM
CNJ
o
OJ
CNJ
CNJ
LT>
n£?
CO
CNJ
z
■— o
O r-
<3- O -3-
O
o
O
CO
■o
WD
o
o
CO
o
CD
00
CT»
CD
<L
CO I
o
CNJ
S
o
O
CO
CO
o
I en
co
n£)
l£>
CM
O
O
O
o
o
0
0
O
CO
<U fO
CD
o
ON
cn
en
CO
CM
-o s:
CO
•3-
O
CD
O
o
o
o
CO
ro
CNJ
o
CO
o
CsJ
0
in
CO
O
..O
*T
O
co
o
CO
<3"
0
i/> s:
ro i
1 CO
CO
cn
O
CD
CD
3
cn
<Z
ro
ro
o
,
CSJ
o
o
o
ro
o
0
O
cXj
. —
. —
■ZL
i— o
O I—
T O «T
O
<J-
<cr
3
-O.
o
E
c/1 S-
o
a£
O
«*
<u
;c
o
O 3
1/1 O
o
C_)
cn
JZ
<t
N_>
=1
O
Lt-
CL.
c/1
t— (—
1— o
CO
u"
<_>
2:
2: N^ OO
X
*"
(/I
(J
Z
125
TABLE 49. Summary o
trace e
ement and miscellaneous constituent concentrati
ons mea
ured in the Bighorn River
Upper
river near St. Xavier and near Hardin
Lower river at
Bighorn
Miscel laneous
and Disso'
N Win
Constituents
ved Metals
Max Med
Total Recoverable Metals*
N Min Max Med
Miscellaneous Constituents
and Dissolved Metals
N Min Max Med
Total
N
Recoverable Metals
Min Max Med
Color
67
1
21 5
10
1 12 4
00b
22
86 109 100
Fecal Strep
11
7 1 300 66
NBAS
22
0.0
0.10 0.01
NH3-N
56
0.0
0.59 0.05
6
0.04 0.19 0.10
Si
167
6.0
16 11
91
4.0 21 9.6
TOC
11
1.0
22 4.0
5
4.8 11 7.6
Aq
4
0.0
.001 0.0
Al
1
--
"
.800
As
4
0.0
.006 .001
3 -.001 <.01 <.01
5
0.0 .002 .002
7
'.001
<.01
0.002
B
134
.060
.300 .110
1 -- - .11
50
.058 .200 .120
6
<.10
0.46
0.13
Ba
4
0.0
0.0 0.0
Be
2
0.0
0.0 0.0
1 — - <.01
1
--
"
<.01
Cd
4
0.0
0.0 0.0
4 <.001 <.01 <.01
5
0.0 .001 0.0
14
0.0
0.02
<.01
Co
4
0.0
.001 0.0
1 -- -- .02
5
0.0 0.0 0.0
6
<.01
0.08
".05
Cr
6 0.0 '.01 0.0
5
0.0 0.0 0.0
7
0.0
0.05
<.01
Cu
4
.004
.030 .013
4 '.01 <.01 .01
5
.001 .003 .002
15
<.01
0.05
0.01
Fe
98
0.0
.210 .010
4 .16 .25 .22
71
0.0 .360 .030
14
.07
8.2
.82
Hg
Li
3 i.OOl 0.007 <.001
1 - - .05
5
0.0 0.0 0.0
12
1
0.0
0.007
<.0002
.04
Hn
31
0.0
.132 .005
2 .01 .07 .04
11
0.0 .020 .010
13
.02
.22
.05
Ho
4
0.0
.020 .004
Ni
4
0.0
.010 .003
Pb
4
0.0
0.0 0.0
5
.001 .003 .002
11
<.01
0.100
<.100
Se
1 -- -- <.001
5
.001 .003 .002
7
<.001
0.004
0.002
Sr
4
0.804
1.070 0.910
3
.36
2.1
.52
V
4
0.0
.0014 .0010
1 -- -- .04
3
<.01
<.10
<.10
In
4
.017
.051 .022
3 '.01 0.01 -.01
5
.002 .020 .010
14
<.01
0.05
0.02
NOTE: Measurements expressed in mg/1.
aPb: <0.01, N=2).
DO expressed as percentage of saturation.
128
toxicity (un-ionized ammonia concentrations were low given the median total -
NH3 and pH levels of the stream). In addition, municipal wastewater discharges
do not appear to have a major effect on the Bighorn River, as the median annual
fecal coliform to fecal strep ratio was less than one (FC:FS=0.80) . FC:FS
ratios between 0.7 and 1.0 indicate that stream bacteria are derived primarily
from animal and soil rather than human sources (Millipore Corporation 1972).
As a final point, the waters of the Bighorn River were uncolored--color was
typically less than ten units. As a result, the waters in the river should be
aesthetically pleasant unless turbidity or eutrophication occur.
BEAUVAIS CREEK
In addition to the Little Bighorn River, several other smaller streams
(with median flows about 5 cfs to 50 cfs) join the Bighorn River in Montana or
have portions of their drainage areas in the state. The USGS has sampled
Beauvais Creek, which drains the west central part of the Bighorn drainage be-
tween Yellowtail Reservoir and Hardin, for several years as a hydrologic bench-
mark station." The USDI (1974) describes this type of station as one that:
. . . provides hydrologic data for a basin in which the
hydrologic regimen will likely be governed solely by
natural conditions. Data collected at a benchmark station
may be used to separate effects of natural from manmade
changes in other basins which have been developed and in
which the physiography, climate, and geology are similar
to those in the undeveloped benchmark basin.
Beauvais Creek provides insight into the natural quality of water in streams
that have a prairie, rather than a mountainous, origin. As indicated in table
50, data were sufficient for a seasonal classification of this stream's water
quality.
As might be predicted for a stream that is little affected by man's acti-
vities, median BOD5 levels in Beauvais Creek were consistently low (<1.6 mg/1).
However, values in excess of 5 mg/1 and approaching 10 mg/1 were obtained spor-
adically, indicating that moderately high background BOD5 concentrations can
occur from natural sources at particular times. Occasionally, high BOD5 levels
have been measured in other streams of the basin in relation to their typically
low median concentrations. However, even a B0D5 of 10 mg/1 is not particularly
high in comparison to values that have been obtained in organically polluted
streams. As a result, DO concentrations in Beauvais Creek were near saturation
(with a median DO saturation of 97 percent), and minimum values were consis-
tently above the state's criteria for a B-D stream. Similarly, values of pH
were typically within state standards (table 8), and median levels were close
to those obtained on other streams possessing an adequate number of readings
(approaching a value of 8.0 units for the entire study area). Also, grab sample
temperatures from Beauvais Creek were not outstanding, but the relatively high
maximum readings in the summer would indicate that this creek is probably a
warm-water fishery--a B-D3 rather than a B-D-j or B-D2 stream.
The direct relationship between flow and suspended sediment and the in-
verse relationship between flow and dissolved solids were not as noticeable
129
TABLE 51. Summary of trace element and miscellaneous constituent concentrations measured in tributaries to the Bighorn River
Tributaries to
Yellowtail Reservoir
Soap and
Rotten Grass creeks
Beauvai
s Creek
Total Recoverable Metals
N Min Max Med N Min Max
Med
Misce
anc
N
Uaneous Constituents
Dissolved Metals4
Min Max Med
Total
N
Recoverable Metals
Min Max Med
Color
21
1 48 4
CN
1
0.0
DOb
26
87 133 97
Fecal Strep
23
34 3100 410
Si
95
5.8 26 14
Ag
1
<.01
Al
8
0.0 .500 0.0
1
.100
As
1 -- - .001
3 <.01 <.01
<.01
2
0.0 0.0 0.0
4
.001 .02 .002
B
33
.080 .424 .160
Ba
1
0.0
1
0.0
Be
1
0.0
Cd
7 <.001 <.001 <.001
8 <.001 <.01
<.01
13
0.0 .003 0.0
4
<.01 0.02 0.01
Co
13
0.0 .001 0.0
Cr
8
0.0 0.0 0.0
9
0.0 .04 0.0
Cu
7 <.01 lOI <.01
8 <.01 0.01
<.01
12
0.0 .024 .006
4
<.01 0.08 0.02
Fe
7 <.01 4.5 0.18
8 .18 9.5
1.5
70
0.0 .75 .31
4
.98 14 4.6
Hg
6 <-001 <.001 i.OOl
5 <.001 <.001
• .001
4
0.0 0.0002 <.0001
Li
12
0.0 .06 .03
Mn
7 <.01 0.25 0.01
4 .13 .50
.21
38
0.0 .31 .03
4
.12 2.2 .44
Mo
10
0.0 .018 .002
Ni
12
0.0 .008 .004
Pb
4 <.01 1.01
<.01
13
0.0 .017 .002
4
OOO <.100 1.100
Se
1
.012
4
.001 .005 .003
Sr
12
.37 3.8 2.25
V
1
.0014
Zn
7 <.01 0.03 0.01
8 <.01 0.07
0.02
14
0.0 .05 .02
4
.07 .31 .20
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1 .
aAg: 0.0. N=l.
00 expressed as percentage of saturation.
132
standard (table 8). An annual median FC:FS ratio of 0.26 was obtained in the
stream, and this ". . . may be taken as strong evidence that pollution derives
predominantly or entirely from . . . (animal) wastes" (Millipore Corporation
1972). This would be expected given the isolation of Beavais Creek from man's
activities. Most of the fecal loads in the Little Bighorn and Bighorn rivers,
the Yellowstone River above Laurel, and Owl and Lodge Grass creeks are probably
derived from natural sources. A major exception is the Yellowstone River below
Billings which has median fecal concentrations at Huntley (table 32) in excess
of the 145 colonies per 100 ml obtained from Beauvais Creek; this is probably
a result of the municipal wastewater discharges that reach the Yellowstone
through the urbanized Laurel-Billings reach of the river (Karp et al. 1976b).
The water in Beauvais Creek was generally clear and the median silica con-
centration was equal to the national average for surface waters (Davis 1964).
The trace elements, except cyanide, barium, lead, and silver, had detectable
TR concentrations in at least some samples, and several of the TR values (Fe,
Mn, and Zn, and possibly Cd and Cu) suggested potential water quality problems
(table 51). As observed in most of the streams, B, Fe, Mn, and Sr were usually
high. However, the high TR concentrations were probably related to the high
suspended sediment levels of the stream, and dissolved concentrations indicated
non-critical levels of most of the trace elements, particularly B, Cd, Cu, Mn,
and Zn. Although dissolved strontium concentrations were high, radiochemical
analyses did not indicate a problem (USDI 1 966-1 974b) , as dissolved gross beta
concentrations (a median of 6.3 PC/1 and a range of 3.5 to 14 PC/1) and dis-
solved radium-226 concentrations (a median of 0.08 PC/1 and a range of 0.05
to 0.15 PC/1) were well below the state and NTAC criteria (tables 8 and 9).
Dissolved uranium concentrations ranged from 1.2 yg/1 to 4.6 yg/1 , within the
range (0.1 to 10 yg/1) found in most natural waters (USDI 1970). Of the trace
elements, only iron may be a potential water quality problem in Beauvais Creek;
concentrations may be too high for the aquatic biota and municipal supply.
The median dissolved concentration of iron exceeded the criteria for fresh-
water life, and about 68 percent of the samples from Beauvais Creek had dis-
solved iron levels in excess of the criteria for the aquatic biota (table 19).
The median dissolved concentration of iron was almost equal to the reference
criteria and standard for surface water public supply and for drinking water;
thus, about 50 percent of the samples from Beauvais Creek had dissolved iron
concentrations above these specified levels. However, the high levels of iron
in Beauvais Creek are apparently not related to pollution inputs, but rather
originate from natural sources. This suggests that naturally high iron concen-
trations may be characteristic of the Yellowstone Basin, particularly in asso-
ciation with high suspended sediment concentrations, with the iron derived pri-
marily from the prairie streams.
Data are also available for various herbicide-pesticide analyses of samples
from Beauvais Creek (USDI 1966-1974b). Of the 102 individual analyses for 18
parameters only DDT was detected (0.02 yg/1), and only in a single sample (a
detection success of 1.0 percent). Detection of these parameters was more
common in the Bighorn River at St. Xavier due to proximity of agricultural
activity; 4.2 percent of the analyses provided detectable concentrations. DDT
and 2,4-D were detected in single cases with concentrations of 0.08 and 0.04 yg/
However, the low probability of detecting herbicides and pesticides and their
generally low concentrations indicate that they do not cause water quality pro-
blems in the Bighorn drainage.
133
OTHER TRIBUTARIES ABOVE HARDIN
Some water quality data are available on several other streams in the Big-
horn drainage as a result of state WQB sampling programs in the region (Karp
and Botz 1975, Slack et al . 1973). These tributaries can be separated into
four groups:
1) streams which drain the same general area as Beauvais Creek
between Yellowtail Reservoir and Hardin, but on the opposite
(eastern) side of the Bighorn River (Soap and Rotten Grass
creeks) ;
2) creeks which drain the mountainous areas around Bighorn Lake
in south central Montana and empty directly into the reser-
voir;
3) Sage Creek, west of Bighorn Lake and unique in its southerly
flow, which joins the Bighorn system in Wyoming; and
4) Tullock Creek, which drains the northeast segment of the
Bighorn drainage between Hardin and Bighorn, joining the
mainstem very near its mouth.
Statistical summaries of the major water quality parameters for the first two
groups listed above are presented in table 52. Tullock Creek is discussed in
the next section of this report.
Date from Beauvais Creek indicate that high concentrations of suspended
sediment and dissolved solids probably occur naturally in many of the streams
in the Bighorn, and, possibly, the Yellowstone drainages. Thus, as in Beauvais
Creek, the high levels of TDS and TSS in Soap and Rotten Grass creeks are pro-
bably the result of natural features, although they may be amplified by man's
activities. Man's activities may also account for the slightly greater BODq
levels in Soap and Rotten Grass creeks over those in Beauvais Creek (table 50).
However, neither the BODg concentrations nor the levels of pH, DO, and SAR in
Soap and Rotten Grass creeks suggested pollution problems, although fecal coli-
form concentrations were high and occasionally exceeded the state recommendation,
Several other similarities are evident between Beauvais, Soap, and Rotten
Grass creeks, possibly due to the closeness of the respective drainage areas.
They all have streams with similar flows tending to have slightly saline,
calcium sulfate compositions and extremely hard waters. In all three streams
sodium, magnesium, and bicarbonate are secondary ions and chloride and fluoride
concentrations are apparently insignificant; SAR ratios are low; waters are
non-eutrophic and nitrogen-limited with median phosphorus concentrations very
near or greater than reference level; and concentrations of metals are low with
the possible exceptions of iron, manganese, and zinc (table 51). The calcium
sulfate water in these group 1 streams suggests that gypsum (CaSO^ formations
may exist in the Yellowtail -Hardin portion of the Bighorn drainage; this is most
apparent in Gypsum Creek (table 52).
In general, the water quality in Soap and Rotten Grass creeks is poor and
poses the same problems for water use as Beauvais Creek. The high TDS and
sulfate (and possibly iron) concentrations and the occasionally high turbidi-
ties would detract from using the streams as municipal supplies (USDHEW 1962)
134
CM OICN
CM
^3- O
■a
• IX) C\J CO CO
OO • CTi CM r— LT)
r~- Lf) OO r— O *3-
CU
O • • IX) CM IX)
CO CM • «*■ •* r~. ^- ■—
1 • CO 0O CM •
.*:
5:
CM CD 00 r— i — LO
i — r— CM CO i — LO LO i —
1 r— CM CM IX) <X>
0 0
CD
CU s_
S- CU
O •!-
wooco
i— O
CD sj-
>
X
CM • CO CM i —
IX) • i — CO O LT) «3"
cm *3- r^ lo 0
r^ cm
i/> m
03
i— i— • o oo o
CD 0O • CD LO CO i — CM
i • 1 — Ln Ln •
1
m x s:
I— i— CO CM i— CD
CDi— «*.— r— COr^.—
1 cm 00 cm lo r-«.
1
0 0
03
S- •
o +->
oo
o
CO
UD CO
c
c
O <X) CO LO
• CO CM
lo <cf- co 00 >=3-
0 0
CU i-
00 • • "=J- CM CD
mo • o co oo <xi uo
1 • IX) 0 00 •
+-> 03
s:
i— o r~- oo r-« i—
CMi — i — CM CO 0O 0O LO
1 ■ — CM CM CM OO
1
0 0
+J CU
o c
q:
z:
«j in in in ^- <*
"sj-Lf)Lr>un<*<^-<d-«^-
0 «d- «3- «=r *3- «d-
•-
*d- ^d-
Ln
>— O i—
ir>
co ^3-
T3
UJ • <d" CM LD
co • LT) r^ r— CD
0 1 — coi-rstnc
CU
ID LT) • O IX) i —
r-^ o • o o co cm o
1 • r^» co 00 •
s:
i — i — CO i — i — Ln
i—i — cmooi — *3- *d- ix>
1 1— CM CM CM 'd-
000
03
o o
CM
<=l- ^i-
CU s-
X
co o a-> o cm
•— • CM O r~ r^
r- Wi-<tO
0 0
C CU
03
oo • • ix> cm O "d- oo • i — i — *d- <x> lo
1 • 00 «*■ CO •
1
21
r-oooOi— cocooo.— oo lo i— ■^-^j-Ln
1 1 — MMMIS
1
0 O
j*: >
CU 03
CU X
s_
IX) O
co
00 ^3-
o •
C
•O'jmO
• CD LO i—
01 t^^r^n
0 0
4->
CM • • «d" CD
CM • • ^ CM CD 0O
1 • LO CM CM •
Q-OO
s:
i-ONKUDCO
CMCDr — ■^J-CO'd-OO-3-
1 O CM CM CM CM
1
0 0
03
O
oo
z
CO OO CO OO CM CO
0O0O0OCMCMCMCMCM
O CM CM CM CM CM
■-
CM CM
03
i — -C
CO o
IX) «3"
X3
LO 1—
•r+J-O
• CD OO CO CM
• . O Lf) CO
cm Ln Ln Ln
00
O O
03 ■r-
CU
0O • • CO O
LT) O • ^fCOO •
CO • CD <x> <3- •
+-> E
s:
CM CD CO CO CO P-.
CMi — CMOLDi — CM*d"
r— O r— 1— CO r-
O V
2 oo
O
f— +J
-Q X2
X)
XD
i— s_
O O O CM
CO X3 CM
CM
Ln *d-
CU o
X
co • ix> o lo m
CM • CM O CO Lf)
0O <3" 00 CD
CM O
>- U_
03
IX) 0O • 0O i — CM
o i— -co co^t loi-
1 • 00 cd co Ln
s
I— i— CO CM CM r—
^-i— CM«d->^-00r-CM
1 O CM r— r— 1—
1
0 0
o s-
+J o3
CU
X3
(/) C
LU O
CU
c
IT) Lf) CD r-» oo
IX) OO CD CM O
O CO r— LO 0O
0 0
•i- s_
• • • o >=d-
• • *3" • Lf) ■
1 • *3" CM • •
1
S- -r-
S
O <X) P-. CO CM CM
LO CD i — O "*CO i — i —
1 O 1— r— <X> O
1
0 V
03 O
-t-> >
3 i-
X3 CU
•i— I/)
S- CU
1— CU
z
co oo co co co r^-
cooor^r-^coooooco
1— co 00 00 00 00
00 CO
SO- X3
00
O B oo S-
OO Q
on 0 «=*-
r— (DI(J Q 3
oo O O o 03 aire 03
■=C O «=C O 1—
U- 1— Q-OO hl-l-QfflU-OSI-Z
y MII-WU
u_
Z Q-
135
as would the very hard nature of the water. The high TSS-turbidity and TDS
levels may also adversely affect the aquatic biota (European Inland Fisheries
Advisory Commission 1965, Ellis 1964); consequently, these streams indicate
poor water quality for fishery needs.
These creeks have low sodium hazards but high salinity hazards for irri-
gation (probably a Class II water) that should be used with care in application
to certain crop and forage species (tables 15-17). In addition, although TDS
concentrations are indicative of a good class of water for stock animals, sul-
fate concentrations in Rotten Grass Creek exceeded the threshold concentration
for stock animals (California WQCB 1963).
The Yellowtail tributaries have the best water quality in the Bighorn
drainage. This can be shown by ranking the annual median TDS concentrations
of the various streams as follows:
Yellowtail tributaries—about 302 mg/1;
upper Little Bighorn River--346 mg/1 ;
Sage Creek—about 464 mg/1 ;
lower Little Bighorn River--470 mg/1;
upper Bighorn River--566 mg/1;
lower Bighorn River--612 mg/1;
middle Bighorn River--630 mg/1;
Little Bighorn River tributaries—about 810 mg/1;
Soap and Rotten Grass creeks— about 1000 mg/1;
Beauvais Creek— 1026 mg/1; and
Tullock Creek— about 1280 mg/1.
Except in the Yellowtail tributaries, Sage Creek, and the Little Bighorn River,
water quality in the tributaries is generally poorer than that in the mainstem
streams.
The effect of Beauvais, Soap, and Rotten Grass creeks on the Bighorn River
is evident in the above listing by the increase in mainstem TDS concentrations
from St. Xavier to Hardin. The decline in mainstem TDS from Hardin to Bighorn
is probably due to dilution from the Little Bighorn River, which joins the Big-
horn below the mainstem-Hardin sampling station.
The low TSS-turbidity values and low TDS and fecal col i form concentrations
in the Yellowtail tributaries (excluding Gypsum Creek) probably result from the
mountainous drainages of these streams (the Pryor and Bighorn mountains) and
the general lack of an extensive prairie system (USDI 1968). The waters were
definitely non-saline, although they were very hard as a result of the high
calcium concentrations. Pollution problems were not indicated by DO, pH, and
BODc values; this is appropriate as the streams are generally removed from
man s activities. All of the constituents for which there were data were in
accord with state standards (table 8). Consequently, the tributary streams
to Yellowtail Reservoir appear to be suitable for all beneficial uses— drinking
water and public supply (although softening may be required due to the hard
waters), stock water, and the irrigation of all crop and forage plants (a Class
I water); however, the unsurveyed, mountainous and remote nature of these
streams would probably preclude their extensive use by man (USDI 1968).
136
The TR concentrations of the metalsin the Yellowtail tributaries were
generally low (table 51); thus, the trace elements should not detract from
any of the water uses. In addition, these streams should be excellent fish-
eries, if no physical barriers are present. The tributary fisheries would
probably be cold-water due to the orographic locations of the streams; these
creeks have been given a B-D-| designation by the State of Montana (Montana
DHES, undated). In contrast to the Bighorn River, the waters in these tri-
butaries were non-eutrophic and probably more phosphorus- than nitrogen-
limited.
Concentrations of all ionic constituents, with the exception of calcium
and bicarbonate, were relatively low in the group two streams. This was most
distinct in terms of their low sodium (and SAR) and sulfate levels in relation
to the higher concentrations of these two ions in the other streams of the
Bighorn drainage. The presence of such chemical features would indicate ex-
tensive limestone formations in the Bighorn-Pryor Mountains.
Although Sage Creek has a different drainage pattern than the other Big-
horn tributaries, it originates in the same mountainous area as the western
tributaries to Yellowtail Reservoir (Pryor Mountains), and as a result, Sage
Creek has a similar type of water as the group two streams (table 53). However,
Sage Creek has a more extensive prairie drainage above its sampling location
near Warren, contributing to its water quality. Sage Creek also has non-saline
and calcium bicarbonate waters which are very hard with low trace element con-
centrations, but higher concentrations of TDS and most ionic constituents than
the Yellowtail tributaries. Concentrations of sodium and sulfate are particu-
larly high. These higher ionic concentrations would not preclude the use of
the stream's water for stock or irrigation. That is, Sage Creek may be clas-
sified as a Class I water with a low sodium and a medium salinity hazard, al-
though its high TDS levels and hardness might give the water a borderline
classification for public supply and drinking water. Relatively high TR iron
(and possibly manganese) levels were evident in Sage Creek, as in many streams
in the Yellowstone Basin. Iron was found in high concentrations in one sample
in association with high suspended sediment concentrations. Such high iron
and manganese levels may reduce the water's value as municipal supply, but the
data were not adequate for a definite assessment of this nature.
The water in Sage Creek was non-eutrophic, and DO, pH, BOD5, SAR, fecal
coliform, and most ionic constituent levels conformed to state criteria where
applicable. The relatively high TSS-turbidity levels, therefore, may be the
major detractions from the water quality. The high TSS levels in Sage Creek
at Warren may be related to its comparatively long prairie segment, as in
Pryor Creek, and in contrast to the orographic drainage of the Yellowtail tri-
butaries.
The Montana fishery in Sage Creek is probably cold-water due to its close-
ness to the Pryor Mountains. This means that it is classified as a B-D-j stream,
although the stream would probably provide only a fair fishery due to the high
TSS concentrations.
137
TABLE 53. Summary of the physical parameters and total recoverable metals measur
in Sage Creek near Warren during the August-October period.
Physical
Parameters
Total
Recove
"able Metals
N
Min
Max
Med
N
Min
Max
Med
Flow
2
15
62.0
38.5
As
2
<.001
<.001
<.001
Temp
2
4.0
12.0
8.0
Cd
2
<.001
<.001
<.001
pH
2
8.20
8.40
8.30
Cu
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
SC
2
488
662
575
Fe
2
0.3
4.1
2.2
TDS
2
401
527
464
Hg
1
--
--
<.001
Turb
2
7
44
26
Mn
2
<.01
0.11
--
TSS
2
22
154
88
Zn
2
<.01
0.02
--
DO
2
9.3
10.9
10.1
BOD
2
1.5
1.7
1.6
FC
2
<100
115
—
Ca
2
63
67
65
Mg
2
22
28
25
TH
2
260
272
266
Na
2
1.8
42
22
K
0
—
--
--
SAR
2
0.0
1.1
0.6
HCOo
2
212
248
230
TA 6
2
174
212
193
S04
2
56
173
115
CI
2
0.1
9.0
4.6
F
0
--
—
--
N
2
0.15
0.01
0.08
P
2
<.01
0.05
--
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1 .
138
TULLOCK CREEK
Tullock Creek is the most northern tributary of the Bighorn River (USDI
1968), and as a result, has an extensive prairie drainage. This is reflected
in the type of water in the creek and in its quality. As suggested previously,
Tullock Creek probably has the poorest water quality in the Bighorn drainage.
Some water quality data are available from the state WQB for an upper site on
the stream and for a lower station near its mouth (table 6). The upstream
data were insufficient for a seasonal or flow-related classification; data
from the lower location were adequate for a separation based on flow, as seen
in table 54.
The chemical composition of water in Tullock Creek was generally different
from that in other streams in the Bighorn system. Upstream, the waters were
sodium bicarbonate in nature, with sulfate the secondary ionic constituent.
Downstream at low flows, the waters became sodium sulfate in character, which
is characteristic of many prairie streams. However, at high flows the creek
in its lower reach retained its sodium bicarbonate type of water--probably a
reflection of upstream influences being carried downstream during the periods
of high discharge.
Calcium and magnesium are the secondary cations in Tullock Creek. The
greater magnesium over calcium concentrations, particularly noticeable on an
equivalence basis, differed from the other streams inventoried, which had
greater calcium over magnesium concentrations. As in most streams in the
Yellowstone Basin, chloride and fluoride concentrations were insignificant
in Tullock Creek.
Median values of pH and BOD5 were slightly higher in Tullock Creek than
those established for other streams in the study area—higher than the median
pH approaching 8.0 units and higher than the median BODc which was generally
less than 3.0 mg/1. However, Tullock Creek is a B-D2 stream, and its pH
values were within the state criteria for this designation (table 8). In
addition, its B0D5 levels, though comparatively high, did not suggest that
too much organic pollution was reaching the stream. As suggested by the
Beauvais Creek data, sporadically high BOD5 levels in excess of 4 mg/1 and
approaching 10 mg/1 might be expected as a natural occurrence.
The stream's DO concentrations were greater than the state's minimum cri-
teria for a B-D2 stream; a few samples, however, demonstrated DO values slight-
ly less than this recommendation (7 mg/1). This fact, and the high maximum
summer temperatures obtained from the stream (greater than 19.4°C) indicate
that it would be more appropriate to classify Tullock Creek a B-D3 stream in-
stead of a B-D2 stream. This is probably true of many of the small lowland
streams in the Bighorn drainage.
Fecal coliform concentrations tended to increase downstream in Tullock
Creek, and occasional grab sample concentrations at the lower site exceeded
the state recommendation; however, the median levels of fecal s were less than
the state's average criteria. Also, trace element concentrations appeared to
be high (except As, Cd, Hg, and Pb) in Tullock Creek (table 54). This was
true of iron and manganese, but, after studying the matter, TR concentrations
of B, Co, Cr, Li, and V do not appear to be critical levels in relation to
139
— o o o
o o — o
O O iX) o
o o ^
cc ^ eg u">
— o
o ©
o o
O O ^
O — C CO
CC t-J O
en — c
co cr. i—
<3- CO v£> •—
kO ■ • LT>
^- CT> <3" .—
o o o
cr» ■— o
t-O O CA «XJ
O r*- r-- KO C^
U"> • CO CO
CO r^. .— <^- o C^
CO CM .— O
«T O O O
•— O O O
«a* i— o o
o o o o
O >X> ^O
<— vO O
CO r*- if)
»X> r— O O O
O O O
O O
O O
o *— en en o co m o o
rocsji— .— (Nj r-> O O O
vo r- k£>
C\- C CO <— Cn
(X. O ;_.-» CO
k© — ■—
UJ O C*
moo o cd
• — ro • i • •
m CM t3" i O O
140
various reference criteria. Table 51 shows that seven to ten percent of the
TR and dissolved concentrations of Fe, Mn, and Zn in Beauvais Creek were present
in the dissolved form. Thus, the dissolved metals concentrations, including
those of Fe, Mn, and Zn in Tullock Creek (and also in Rotten Grass, Soap, and
Sage creeks) do not appear to cause water quality problems because the calcu-
lated dissolved concentrations would be lower than the corresponding reference
criteria.
Major features that degrade Tullock Creek's quality apparently are its
high dissolved and suspended solids concentrations. Suspended sediment levels
in Tullock Creek were relatively high throughout the stream and were directly
related to flow. Dissolved solids concentrations were also high, but they
tended to increase downstream at a level of 26 percent at similar flows, and
they were negatively correslated with discharge. The waters were typically
slightly saline and very hard; these features together with the high sulfate
concentrations would generally eliminate the creek as a source for domestic
supply. Turbidities also often exceeded the permissible criteria for surface
water public supply. Although the stream may be considered a good source of
stock water on the basis of TDS levels, the high sulfate and bicarbonate con-
centrations of the creek occasionally exceeded the threshold and limiting levels
of these parameters (tables 10-14) at all locations and flow regimes. Most
common near the stream's mouth during periods of low discharge, this would re-
duce the value of the creek as a source of water for domestic animals. In
turn, the high TDS and TSS concentrations, particularly in the downstream reach
at low flows, would be expected to have a detrimental effect on the stream's
biota. On the basis of overall TSS concentrations, the stream would probably
support a poor fishery.
Tullock Creek appears to have the poorest water quality for irrigation of
any of the streams analyzed. It has a high salinity hazard and a medium sodium
hazard for this use (USDA 1954) in contrast to the low sodium hazards observed
in other streams of the Bighorn drainage. With high sulfate, sodium, SAR, and
specific conductance-TDS levels in the stream, Tullock Creek definitely has a
Class II water for irrigation (tables 15 and 16) that should be used with
caution when applied to some crop and forage species.
YELLOWSTONE RIVER
BIGHORN RIVER TO POWDER RIVER
YELLOWSTONE MAINSTEM
This is an extensive reach of the Yellowstone River that receives water
from numerous small prairie tributaries of potentially poor quality and from
several large tributaries, including the Bighorn River. The larger tributaries,
such as the Bighorn, would be expected to affect the water quality of the Yel-
lowstone mainstem, and cumulative effects would be expected from the smaller
streams. Several water quality trends and problems are evident in the mainstem
above Custer.
Some water quality trends observed on the Yellowstone River above Custer
are summarized as follows:
141
1) There is an inverse relationship between TDS concentrations
and flow, with salinity increasing downstream. This is due
primarily to increasing sodium, sulfate, calcium (and total
hardness), and bicarbonate levels.
2) Magnesium, potassium, chloride, and fluoride are minor con-
stituents in the river above Custer and lack distinct changes
in concentration downstream.
3) The water is calcium bicarbonate with increasing proportions
of sodium and sulfate and generally lower Ca:Mg and HCC^SC^
ratios downstream.
4) Values of pH tend to be lower at high flows and upstream with
the reduced alkalinities.
5) There exists a tendency towards a greater, but apparently
non-critical, organic loading in the river below Billings.
6) Temperatures become warmer below Big Timber.
7) A direct relationship has been observed between TSS-turbidity
and flow, the levels of which generally increase downstream
to Custer.
8) Metals concentrations increase downstream, as shown by the
TR and dissolved levels of Fe, Mn, and Sr.
9) A spring-summer, March-July pulse of high phosphorus concen-
trations occurs with a downstream increase in phosphorus
during the winter and summer.
10) Non-eutrophic conditions prevail due to a nitrogen limita-
tion, although the river tends to become more eutrophic
downstream.
11) Peak nitrogen concentrations occur during the winter and low
levels during the summer.
12) Pesticide-herbicide detection is more successful downstream.
Potential water quality problems in the Yellowstone above Custer might be
listed as follows:
1) The river has relatively high fluoride concentrations above
Livingston, possibly detracting from the stream's use for
stock water and irrigation.
2) High phenol and fecal coliform concentrations occur below
Laurel .
3) High TSS-turbidity and TDS concentrations develop downstream.
142
4) Arsenic and mercury concentrations are potentially high.
5) Eutrophy may occur downstream near Custer.
Ammonia may be a eutrophic element in the Laurel -to-Custer reach of the river,
as the stream is nitrogen-limited.
Water quality data on the Bighorn River-to-Powder River reach of the
Yellowstone River are available from the USGS for three locations. In down-
stream order, they are at Myers below the Bighorn River, at Forsyth above
Rosebud Creek and at Miles City above the Tongue River. The USGS site at
Terry in the subsequent study segment lies below the confluence of the Tongue
and Powder rivers and may be expected to show the effects of these tributaries
on the mainstem (USDI 1968).
The site at Miles City is probably most representative of the river's
quality in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach due to the longer period of collection
(table 3). Stations at Billings and near Livingston also gave more accurate
information for their reaches for the same reason. Thus, inter-reach water
quality comparisons are probably most valid when made between the Livingston,
Billings, and Miles City locations. The USGS data for the Bighorn-to-Powder
reach were supplemented by information collected by the state WQB as a part
of various sampling programs (Karp and Botz 1975, Montana DNRC 1974, Peterman
and Knudson 1975). Closely related state WQB sites on the river were com-
bined to correspond to the three USGS locations (Myers, Forsyth, and Miles
City); this accounts for the modifications of the USGS site designations in
the water quality tables of this report (tables 55-57) for major parameters.
An inverse relationship between flow and TDS concentrations was evident
in the Bighorn-to-Powder segment of the Yellowstone River. A two-fold increase
in TDS was observed from the May-July runoff period to the low-flow winter-
spring seasons. However, this relationship was not as obvious throughout the
entire year in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach as it was upstream. Above Custer,
median TDS concentrations increased from the May- July period to the winter
season, and concentrations in the winter and spring (March-April) were then
closely equivalent. Only a 17 mg/1 or 6.6 percent difference in TDS was ob-
tained between the May-July-to-winter and the winter-to spring periods (a
6.2 percent average difference in specific conductance). Median flows decreased
from the runoff period to the winter with flows during the winter and spring
seasons also closely equivalent, i.e., a 338 cfs or 5.5 percent average dif-
ference between these seasons. In contrast, in the Yellowstone below Custer,
median TDS levels consistently increased from the runoff period through the
spring phase, averaging 62 mg/1 or 13.1 percent higher in the spring than in
the winter. However, median flows also increased dramatically from the winter
to the spring, averaging 2917 cfs or 38.5 percent higher during the latter
season. This secondary peak in flows during the spring, along with the increase
in TDS concentrations, is probably a reflection of inputs to the Bighorn-to-
Powder segment from prairie streams which have an earlier runoff period and a
relatively poor water quality, this, in turn produces a direct relationship
between flow and TDS for a portion of the year in the lower river.
Salinity in the Yellowstone River, as measured by total dissolved solids
or specific conductance, was found to increase downstream from Corwin Springs
143
O
O
CO
<3*
CNJ
„
■o
Cn
CO
OJ
00
CO
00
VO
0
0)
CO
CO
en
VD
00
CO
^-
ro
CM
vO
2:
CO
0
^r
CO
co
CO
ro
CO
~
ON
VD
0
O
0
>»
0
^3-
13 X
*J-
*3-
O
O
«=r
VO
O
CO
ON
ON
ON
VD
vO
^r
CO
vo
CD
co
VO
0
O
■ ZE.
ID
CNJ
CO
'"■
vo
CNJ
in
■-,
u->
A
vo
CSJ
CM
CO
rt
CM
rt
CM
en
O
0
0
£
O
O
O
O
CO
c
vo
CO
ON
VO
vo
0
0
CO
VO
^r
co
O
O
VO
CO
CM
ON
2:
0
VO
u-J
CM
O
on
cn
0
O
CM
00
CM
CNJ
O
0
0
0
z
ON
en
Cf»
«a-
cn
O
VO
CO
CO
■0
CO
O
«=j-
VO
CO
<t
ON
ID
CNJ
0
CO
0
vo
LD
ON
0
2:
"""
CO
CO
"**
ID
CM
■**
,H
CM
CM
VO
CM
CM
VO
CO
rt
^
CM
CD
O
0
,_
O
O
«=r
CD
O. X
CO
en
VO
CD
vo
0
CM
O
O
O
<: m
^*
CO
*d-
O
O
0
VO
0
VO
0
p~
■—
CO
r>-
vo
CO
•-,
"-1
*3"
vo
P*-
ro
ro
f--
«*
CM
CM
•— «
CM
■-H
O
CD
CD
V-
2:
O
0
0
,3.
pj
O
0
O
ON
VO
VO
VO
O
en
0
0
on
C0
VO
CO
5:
CO
CNJ
CO
vO
CO
CNJ
tn
'"",
*-■
on
U~>
*""•
CM
^3-
1-1
•^
H
— '
^
=
C
—
=
f-
CO
CO
CO
00
VD
VO
CO
r-
■*
CO
CO
CO
co
VO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
VO
r-
--
0
-0
*3-
0
O
ro
VO
0
0
O
^CU
VO
CO
<a-
^
CO
ON
VO
0
>»
^
■~~
00
r^
*3"
■— *
IT)
«-*
Od
VO
VO
CM
CM
LD
ro
*— '
*— '
^^
CM
ON
O
0
O
O
3
O
s-
O
0
cv
JD X
CD
CO
ON
O
CM
O
O
VO
VO
*3"
ro
O
VO
VO
ON
0
u- 2:
1 —
id
CO
r*-
VD
ID
ON
•— i
CO
r*»
VO
CM
CM
VO
uo
•— '
■— *
■— 1
CM
O
CD
CD
i
.o
O
CJ c
O
0
CD
O
0
O
O
O
CO
ON
O
•=d-
0 2:
0
VO
CO
lD
CO
O
O
z
2
r*
CO
CO
CO
'*
*3"
CNJ
00
CM
CNJ
'*-
CO
r-
**
vo
"^
^
^
"^
r-
vO
r*"
'"■
O
0
CO
0
CO
O
co
CD
O
CO
C
CU
VO
CD
VO
O
CO
VO
CO
CO
2:
on
■""
CO
ID
CO
1-1
■"•
on
•"*
ro
**
CM
1-1
**"
vo
O
CD
—
v_
O
<u
O
JO
CD
VO
O X
O
0
0
0
CO
vO
CO
O
CO
en
0
CO-
CO
u 2;
0
■""
CM
CO
"**
CO
CM
-"•
CM
1
LO
CM
CM
in
en
O
O
c
^
3
O
VO
VO
„
VDN C
O
0
en
vO
CO
VO
VO
vo
O
CD
O
CO
co
ON
vo
1 2:
CO
T
CO
"*
CM
VD
■"*
^
0
1
CO
■"*
'~*
ro
CM
^^
*-*
r- 1
ON
VD
O
O
CD
=
,s-
r^
r-
*"
VO
*
ro
^
ro
-
VO
^
VO
vO
VO
vO
^
^
VO
vO
VO
VO
VD
3
O-
JD
O
o
C£
0
O
DD
V_)
CD
3
O
0
0
21
<
CJ
<
O
u"
*"
—
CO
f~
t—
h~
O
CO
LJ"
v_)
S
*""
^
^
vr.
x
*"
uo
v_)
U"
z
"l
144
0
0
00
O
(XI
en
CM
■o
*3"
in
0
«3"
cr.
ro
at
in
LO
co
o\
in
co
0
0
00
^3-
OJ
CO
CM
CM
cr.
CO
rf
O
0
O
:*>
00
m
O
in
. — X
O
0
00
0
eg
LO
cr»
a-
0
«»
in
O
CNi
ON
0
0
CO
O
LO
en
•-s s:
10
CM
00
in
co
co
on
•"
**
00
LO
r—
•—
CO
CO
CSJ
1—
r^.
O
0
■
>>
0
E
0
CO
O
*r
CM
lo
LO
IO
CNJ
CO
0
O
0
O
*T
*T
CO
ro
10
^r
-
CO
CO
CO
«
O
en
r^
O
CO
en
ro
ro
ro
ro
0
CO
ro
CO
ro
ro
O
0
ro
C3
ro
0
CO
m
^
■o
00
0
O
CNJ
CT»
m
cr
O
O
ai
en
co
LO
CO
0
0
ON
cr»
5:
en
LO
CO
^
LO
CNJ
CO
r"
CM
"~
LO
CM
CM
LO
«3-
""
^~
■~
CM
'--.
O
0
O
,_
0
0
*3-
ro
0. X
m
o~>
CO
O
0
O
ro
^r
ro
< rO
*d-
10
O
0
CM
1 2:
CO
CO
LO
ro
CO
«^"
O
0
O
-£=
s_
2:
0
r>^
CM
c
^r
LO
0
CO
O
CT>
*3"
CM
O
a
in
O
O
LO
O
CTt
en
LO
s
CO
en
0
<3"
^t-
O
in
0
O
O
^
00
en
cr>
cr.
LO
r^
cr.
C7>
CT>
ON
cr.
cr>
en
en
in
CO
0
■cf
ro
-0
O
O
CO
0
CO
LO
LO
O
0
*r
O
OJ
*^-
LO
LO
CO
CM
0
CNJ
CTi
^0
en
s:
00°
*3"
LO
CM
CT>
0
O
O
>>
IB
S-
0
■3-
jQ X
CO
in
0
CO
0
0
<3-
*3-
O
aj fa
en
LO
■3-
10
CNJ
0
IO
u- 2:
en
«=r
CO
r**
LO
LO
in
r—
•3-
in
LO
CM
CM
LO
<=r
-—
CNJ
•—
CM
•—
O
O
O
i.
ai
j=>
0
O
aj c
0
0
>tf
O
CO
in
CO
O
0
O
0
00
0
0 2:
0
LO
*=r
CO
LO
O
O
O
z
^.
00
ai
en
cn
^
*
ro
en
ro
ro
r-*
00
■**
^
LO
^
r-
in
■**
^
m
^
^
0
0
0
"O
00
CO
O
0
LO
LO
O
in
«3-
O
ai
LO
LO
LO
CM
CT\
LO
CO
01
LO
•r
2:
en
*""
co'
LO
co
on
ro
CO
■""
■"-
**
■""
"~
**
co
■""
,—
r_
"~
in
C3
O
O
i_
0
QJ
0
JD
co
0
in
0 x
O
LO
0
*3-
CM
in
CM
LO
CO
CO
CM '
CO
CO
u 2:
CO
CM
LO
CM
CM
en
CD
O
0
0
■^
D
0
LO
in
,—
0
0
O
LO
«»■
co
CO
O
ro
0
O
en
O
ON
ON
ST
< 2
r"~
■""
CO
*"
Csj
LO
■""
■*"
O
'
m
l—
'~
co
(\j
■""
*"
'~
"~
in
O
0
0
■z.
r-
^
00
CO
r-
«3-
ro
^
ro
-
■*■
00
''-
p"
r^
r"
CO
CO
^
^
r-
r~-
r-
3
0.
n
PO
0
i_
O
or
0
T
01
IE
t_>
a
0
O
CJ
ra
Z
<c
l_)
•X
O
u"
a.
•"
*"
Q
CO
u-
0
2:
l~
•z
^c
CO
^
>—
U0
i_)
""
z
0l
145
cnococ\j\ooocr»ir>
f— m -s- lo ■ * co
VO i—
eg f— >— en on
CM «3- «^
O —
O O CD
O r-^ O •— O
* • U") O CO O *3" • •— O
ud <3- • r-* *r o — o *i—
<£> CM CO CO "^O CO .— i — U"> CM
"<3" *4D '•O O CO O
*3- o ir> en ■— ^o
CO O • •
<— CM CTi O •— •—
co co <jo
r-» CO i— i— O CO CO
f— cm en .—
CM O O O
CM O O O
^j- <=r <a-
co o en o
en cm
UD CD UD
<— co ud o
-— o o o
r-- ud CO O i—
r*. ■ cm en o cm
i — co en UD CM <3"
<— ud ud *d-
CO •— o
r— CO ■— UD i—
UD CO O
■— o o o
ud en co cd o
i— CM O O O
o ■— o
t— co r-
CT> UD r—
COCnuDCMr— .— COr—
<— •— O CO
co en co
i — ud ^r co o
o
cm en o o o
CM i— O CD CD
o o o •—
cm • • en
«d" CD r^ co
■— en en
CO i— CO
CO o O
o o o
r— .— O r—
■— ud o en
en .— co «x» co
.— CM CO
■— uD
en .—
o CO CD
CD i— .—
o en <=r o o
i— r»* o o o
CO to
en en ■—
CD
•— o o o
CO o o
CD CD O
• — cncnocnr-CDCD
o o o
<=t C_J e£ O ■—
146
to Custer. This trend was also evident in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach of the
river, but it was most obvious and consistent between the Custer and Myers
sampling locations around the confluence of the Bighorn River. Below Myers,
salinity increases downstream were relatively small. This indicates that
tributary effects on the river below Myers were not as distinct as those eman-
ating from the Bighorn River. For example, the increase in salinity from
Custer to Myers averaged 38.7 percent, and that from Custer to Miles City
averaged 38.6 percent. This suggests that the Bighorn River had a significant
effect on the Yellowstone with negligible effects developing from the smaller
tributaries in the Bighorn-to-Powder segment. The overall increase in salinity
from Custer to Miles City ranged from about 22 percent to 58 percent, depending
upon season and parameter (i.e., specific conductance or TDS). The total in-
crease in salinity in the river from Corwin Springs to Miles City ranged from
164 percent to 173 percent and from 153 percent to 172 percent during the
August-to-April period for specific conductance and TDS, respectively, and it
equalled 215 percent and 200 percent during the runoff period. The change in
salinity per river mile in the Bighorn-to-Powder segment (to Miles City) was
greater than that in the upper river above Laurel but less than that in the
Laurel -to-Custer reach. This can be shown in table 58 below.
TABLE 58. Salinity change per river mile in the Bighorn-to-Powder segment.
Reach
Percentage increase in salinity per river mile
Maximum
Minimum
above Laurel
Laurel to Custer
Custer to Miles City
0.2
1.1
0.5
0.05
0.5
0.2
In the upper river above Laurel, the downstream increase in salinity was
greatest during the May-July runoff phase, intermediate during the winter, and
lowest during the August-October and the spring (March-April) periods. A dif-
ferent pattern was evident in the Laurel -to-Custer segment of the Yellowstone--
the salinity increase was greatest during the August-October period, inter-
mediate between March and July, and lowest during the winter. On the Bighorn-
to-Powder reach of the Yellowstone, the increase was lowest in the August-
October period when flows and TDS concentrations in the Bighorn River (table
48), and therefore the tributary's TDS loads, were at their lowest. The salin-
ity increase was greatest during the winter-spring, November-April period when
the TDS concentrations in the Bighorn were high and when its median flows were
greater than those in the mainstem at Billings. Intermediate increases in
salinity were obtained during the runoff period below Custer when the high
flows in the Yellowstone would tend to negate the TDS loadings from the Bighorn
River. Therefore, on the basis of total dissolved solids, there was a con-
tinued downstream degradation of water quality in the Yellowstone below Custer
to Miles City; the quality was poorest below Custer in the spring and greatest
during the runoff period (ignoring the TSS factor).
Suspended sediment concentrations were generally much greater throughout
the Yellowstone River during the May-July period of high flows than during the
rest of the year. Although considerable variation was obtained between sampling
147
stations (probably due to the general absence of TSS data), an 18-fold maximum
average difference became evident between low and high-flow seasons over the
entire river above Miles City.
The direct relationship between flow and TSS was fairly consistent in the
river above Huntley, although TSS-turbidity levels in the spring (March-April)
tended to be somewhat higher than might be expected on the basis of flow. This
discrepancy was more noticeable in the river below Billings, and in the Bighorn
to-Powder segment, the spring increase in TSS corresponded to a secondary, Marcl
April peak in flow below Custer. The spring increase in TSS, like TDS, can be
attributed to inputs from prairie tributaries with their earlier runoff periods
and relatively high TSS loads. Most sites on the Yellowstone above Huntley
demonstrated a slight decline in TSS-turbidity from August-October to the win-
ter period and coincided with a drop in flow. Below Billings, however, TSS-
turbidity increased between these seasons regardless of the flow decline, and
this continued into the spring season. This might also be attributed to early
runoff events from the lowland regions during the winter period.
A general downstream increase in TSS-turbidity occurred during all seasons
this was observed in the river above Custer and was carried into the Bighorn-tO'
Powder reach of the river to Miles City. As a result, water quality in the
Yellowstone River also declined downstream, as measured by the presence of
suspended sediment and turbidity; these variables detracted from the better
water quality during the runoff period. This in turn may affect various water
uses in the Bighorn-to-Powder segment. Most notably, the high turbidities at
high flows would detract from the use of the river as a domestic supply during
runoff season, as median turbidities exceeded permissible criteria for surface
water public supply (table 9). The consistently high turbidities would tend to
degrade the river aesthetically regardless of the generally uncolored water
(color was typically less than 10 units).
The high TSS concentrations may affect the Yellowstone fishery. Such a
condition was observed in the Laurel -to-Custer reach, and any degradation would
be more pronounced below Myers because of the greater TSS concentrations. On
the basis of annual median TSS levels (156 mg/1), the river at Miles City pro-
bably is a fair fishery judging from the observations of the European Inland
Fisheries Advisory Commission (1965). This contrasts with the good-to-moderate
fishery in the Yellowstone above Huntley to Laurel and blue-ribbon fishery in
the river at Corwin Springs (Berg 1977).
With the possible exceptions of fluoride and potassium, the concentrations
of most dissolved ionic constituents in the river increased to some extent from
Custer to Myers (comparing tables 33 and 55) in response to inputs from the
Bighorn River and the increase in total dissolved solids through this segment.
However, fluoride, potassium, magnesium, and chloride continued to be secondary
or insignificant components of the samples, and sodium, calcium, sulfate, and
bicarbonate dominated the chemical composition of the water. This was also
true in the segment of the river below Myers where the levels of dissolved con-
stituents remained constant with small and inconsistent concentration changes
in most parameters downstream to Miles City. This is appropriate, as there are
no marked increases in TDS levels throughout this reach. Regardless of initial
concentration increases in the Bighorn-to-Powder segment, none of the major
ionic constituents or the TDS concentrations appeared to be at levels sufficienl
148
to consistently and significantly detract from any of the water uses. The
water in the Yellowstone between Myers and Miles City was obviously unsuitable
as a surface water public supply due to its high TDS levels and low fluoride
concentrations, but it probably could be used for public supply if given cer-
tain reservations.
The Miles City data (table 57) shows that TDS and sulfate concentrations
occasionally exceeded the permissible criteria and standards for public supply
and drinking water. About 28 percent of the samples from the Bighorn-to-Powder
reach had TDS in excess of 500 mg/1 ; this was most frequent during the November-
to-April period. About 15 percent of the samples had sulfate concentrations in
excess of its reference criteria. These findings, and the unusually hard nature
of the water, detract from the river's potential value as a municipal supply.
Salinity levels in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach may influence the aquatic
biota with TDS concentrations occasionally in excess of 400 mg/1. This effect,
however, would probably be mild, as TDS exceeded 400 mg/1 in only about 56
percent of the samples and never exceeded the critical 680 mg/1 level through-
out this reach.
The Bighorn-to-Powder segment may be expected to provide excellent water
quality for stock animals, as total dissolved solids and ionic constituents are
well below threshold levels. Also, it is qualified to be a Class I water for
irrigation, as the boron (<0.35 mg/1), SAR, chloride, sulfate, and TDS-specific
conductance levels were well within range of values for this classification
(tables 15 and 16). The Yellowstone consistently had a low sodium hazard for
irrigation between Custer and Miles City due to the high calcium and low sodium
concentrations, and, consequently, the low SAR values. However, it had a med-
ium salinity hazard for irrigation from May to October, and the river tended
to have a high salinity hazard during the winter and spring when TDS concen-
trations were high. A high salinity hazard during the spring could reduce the
river's value for irrigation during the March-April period.
Sodium, calcium, and sulfate showed the greatest increases in concentration
below Custer, consistent with the calcium-sodium sulfate water in the Bighorn
River (table 48). As a result, the trend for the Yellowstone to become more
sodium sulfate in character downstream continued through the Bighorn-to-Powder
reach of the stream. This can be shown using Ca:Na and H^iSOa ratios as
seen in table 59. The effect of the Bighorn was less pronounced when the Yellow-
stone had high flows, which would tend to mask the TDS loading from the tributary
to some extent. The effect of the tributary was greatest in terms of the HCO3:
SO4 ratios due to the high concentrations of sulfate in the Bighorn; this was
also observed on the CI arks Fork Yellowstone River. The extremely low HC03:S04
ratios in the Yellowstone below Custer occurred during the winter and spring
periods when TDS concentrations and flows in the tributary were high in compar-
ison to the mainstem. An intermediate HC03:S04 ration was obtained from August
to October when Bighorn TDS levels and flows were low. Due to these features,
the Bighorn-to-Powder reach tends to have calcium bicarbonate water during high
flows, a calcium-sodium bicarbonate water in the late summer and early fall,
and a calcium-sodium sulfate water during the late fall, winter, and spring.
As observed on the Yellowstone above Custer, values of pH in the Bighorn-
to-Powder segment tended to be lower during the high-flow periods in association
149
TABLE 59.
Downstream composition changes on the Bighorn-to-Powder reach of the
Yellowstone River.
Ca
Na
HC03:S04
Low Flows
High Flows
Low Flows High Flows
above Laurel
1.51
2.36
3.73a
5.71
Billings
1.49
1.72
2.12a
3.83
Huntley
1.44
1.46
1.88a
2.45
Custer
1.37
1.60
1.78a
2.72
Myers
1.06
1.19
1.22b
0.93C
1.35
near Forsyth
0.98
1.14
1.10b
0.96c
1.31
Miles City
0.98
1.27
1.08b
0.92c
1.31
NOTE: Measurements are given in mg/1
aAugust-April .
DAugust-0ctober.
cNovember-April .
with the reduced alkalinities. Also, pH tended to increase downstream below
Custer to Forsyth in accordance with the increase in alkalinity through this
segment. However, the ranges of this parameter in all seasons and at all sta-
tions were never outside of the state's criteria for pH in a B-D3 stream, and
they were not indicative of pollution problems. Although median pH decreased
from Forsyth to Miles City, pH levels were generally greater in the river at
Miles City (table 57) than at Billings (table 31).
The river tends to change from a cold-water fish
1977) to a warm-water fishery downstream, with the La
the river in a transition zone (Peterman 1977). A co
is evident below Custer, and the Yellowstone is most
at that point. With the exception of the winter seas
were consistently less than 2.0°C throughout the rive
than 7.0°C, and ignoring inconsistencies between site
maximum and median grab sample temperatures increased
Springs to Miles City. This can be demonstrated by a
warm-weather data for sequential sites corresponding
(Corwin Springs to Big Timber), a transition zone rea
and a warm-water reach (Huntley to Miles City) as fol
ery above Big Timber (Berg
urel-to-Custer reach of
ntinuation of this trend
likely a warm-water stream
on when median temperature
r and maximums were less
s due to lack of data,
downstream from Corwin
veraging the May-October
to a cold-water reach
ch (Big Timber to Huntley)
lows in table 60.
TABLE 60. Average May-October warm-weather data for sequential sites.
Median Temperatures
Maximum Temperatures
Corwin Springs to Big Timber
Big Timber to Huntley
Huntley to Miles City
9.7°C
14.7°C
15.8°C
16.6°C
19.60C
22.6°C
150
The different temperature characteristics of the extreme upper Yellowstone and
the lower river can also be demonstrated by USGS temperature data taken once
daily from the stream near Livingston and at Miles City. Since 1970, only 9.7
percent of the readings from the river near Livingston exceeded 19.4°C during
the June-September warm-weather period; only 4.8 percent were equal to or greater
than 20°C. In contrast, for the same seasonal and historic intervals, 64.3 per-
cent of the once-daily readings at Miles City exceeded 19.4°C with 60.9 percent
greater than or equal to 20°C. None of the readings from the river at Living-
ston exceeded 22.5°C, and maximum temperatures through the five years ranged
between 20.5°C and 21°C. At Miles City, however, 24.1 percent of the once-
daily temperatures were greater than 22.5°C, with maximum temperatures ranging
between 24°C and 27°C. These data show that the Yellowstone River below
Billings is appropriately classified a B-D3 stream.
High phosphorus concentrations were found in the Yellowstone at Custer in
excess of reference criteria as a result of a general downstream increase below
Laurel and an accentuation of a May-July (and March-April) pulse which first
became evident at Laurel (table 28). This spring-early summer pulse of phos-
phorus might have been related to the high sediment levels in association with
the high flows. Thus, with the high nitrogen concentrations, the Yellowstone
at Custer (and Huntley) was potentially eutrophic, although nitrogen-limited.
The trend towards eutrophy was apparently negated below Custer with an initial
decline in median phosphorus concentrations to Myers, and with a lessening of
the March-July pulse of phosphorus. This was probably caused by dilutions from
the Bighorn River which had low phosphorus concentrations at its mouth during
all seasons, lacking the high-flow pulse. Below Custer, therefore, median
phosphorus concentrations were less than or equal to the reference criteria,
except during the runoff period, when phosphorus concentrations were constant
throughout the Myers-to-Miles City segment of the stream. The river does not
appear to be eutrophic below Myers; less than 18 percent of the samples from
the Bighorn-to-Powder segment would have both P and N in excess of the nutrient
reference criteria, and less than five samples would have both of these nutri-
ents in excess of the EPA's (1974b) criteria.
Nitrogen concentrations remained high below Custer, although median values
were typically less than the corresponding standard for eutrophication. This
in turn corresponds to the high, but noncritical, nitrogen concentrations in
the Bighorn River. High winter and low summer variations of this parameter
were observed in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach, as in the upper Yellowstone and
the Bighorn rivers. Below Myers, nitrogen tended to decline downstream, al-
though this was not totally consistent between all sites and during all seasons.
The decline was greatest during the runoff period. From Custer to Myers, ni-
trogen either increased or decreased by season, depending on the nitrogen level
and flow (or nitrogen loading) relationships between the Bighorn River at Big-
horn and the Yellowstone River at Custer. That is, nitrogen concentrations in-
creased between stations from August to October and from March to April when
nitrogen levels in the Bighorn were high compared to those in the Yellowstone.
When the opposite conditions were in effect, during the winter and high-flow
periods, nitrogen concentrations decreased from Custer to Myers.
A slight and noncritical organic loading became evident in the Laurel-to-
Custer reach of the river, probably caused by various industrial and municipal
discharges from the urbanized Laurel-Billings area. Although sporadically high
151
BOD5 levels were obtained below Custer, organic loading did not appear to rise
in the Myers-to-Miles City reach, as median BOD5 levels in this lower segment
were generally equal to those upstream; the average BODc level at Huntley and
Custer equalled 2.6 mg/1 whereas that below Custer equalled 2.7 mg/1. Occasion
ally high BOD5 values, but less than 10 mg/1 (table 50), might be expected as
natural occurrences. BODc values in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach of the Yellow-
stone never exceeded 9 mg/1, and only 14 percent of the samples had BOD5 levels
in excess of 4 mg/1. In addition, median TOC and median COD concentrations
(tables 61 and 62) were equivalent to or less than the average for natural
surface waters (Lee and Hoodley 1967).
Organically polluted streams, such as Yegen Drain in Billings (Karp et al .
1976b, Klarich 1976), demonstrate much higher grab sample BOD5 and TOC concen-
trations and more frequent high values. In Yegen Drain, for example, a median
BOD5 of 14.5 mg/1 and a median TOC of 35 mg/1 was obtained with several grab
samples having BOD5 levels in excess of 80 mg/1; 100 percent of the samples had
BODc, concentrations greater than 4.0 mg/1 and TOC concentrations greater than
35 mg/1. Based upon these findings, organic pollution does not appear to be
a problem in the Yellowstone River. This was confirmed by the high dissolved
oxygen levels in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach—minimum values were well above
the state criteria for a B-D3 stream and median values were very near satur-
ation (tables 61 and 62).
A noticeable fecal col i form problem developed in the river through the
Laurel -to-Custer reach as a result of wastewater discharges from the Laurel -
Billings area. This was most obvious at Billings and Huntley (tables 31 and
32) where median and grab sample concentrations commonly exceeded Montana's
water quality standards (Montana DHES 1973). Concentrations were too high to
be attributed to natural occurrences. The fecal problem was also evident in
the river at Custer, though it apparently had lessened through the Huntley-
Custer reach, as there were fewer violations and generally lower concentrations
downstream (table 33). At all stations below Billings, fecal concentrations
were greatest at high flows. Fecal levels tended to increase downstream from
Custer during the May-July period, but they tended to decline in the river be-
low Custer to Miles City (tables 33 and 55-57) through the rest of the year.
Below Custer, median fecal concentrations in the river were within the state's
average criteria at all sites and during all seasons. This suggests a further
lessening of the fecal problem due to a natural die-off following the upstream
inputs; however, occasional grab samples had concentrations still in excess of
state criteria. Nevertheless, fecal levels, for the most part, do not appear
to restrict the use of water from the Bighorn-to-Powder segment of the Yellow-
stone for municipal supply. Only 7 percent of the samples from the Bighorn-to-
Powder reach had levels in excess of the NTAC (1968) and the EPA (1973) recom-
mendations for surface water public supply. (USEPA 1973, USDI 1968).
The phenol problem that developed in the Laurel -to-Custer segment of the
river cannot be assessed in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach because data are un-
available. Similarly, herbicide-pesticide concentrations and detection success
cannot be established in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach. However, herbicide-
pesticide information is available from the USGS on the river at Sidney (USDI
1966-1974b). The potential upstream fluoride problem is apparently eliminated
from the river before it reaches Livingston due to tributary dilution. Fluorid
concentrations remained low in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach and did not suggest
152
TABLE 61
. Summary o
f miscellaneous constiluent and
trace element concentrati
Yellowstone River at
N
Miscellaneous
lents and
total recoverable
metals
Min Max Med
N
Dissolved
Min Max Med
N
meous
metals
Min Max Med
N
■et«lsc
Max Med
0Od
22
60 108 99
22
86 108 95
NH3-N
Si
7
20
0.03 0.14 0.07
8.7 13 11
7
20
0.02 0.14
8.5 13 11
TOC
4
2.1 13 8.9
4
4.7 15 10
Ag
2
0.0 .001
001
Al
7
0.4 9.9 0.8
6
0.0 .01
04
8
0.10 15 1.2
6
0.0
.16 .02
As
4
.005 .055 .018
6
.002 .006
005
5
.023 .002
.003"
.005 .004
B
11
<.10 0.33 0.10
12
.06 .16
14
11
0.29 0.10
12
.05
.15 .14
6a
2
.100 .100
100
3
0.0
Be
5
0.0 0.02
.01
6
0.0
0.01 '.01
Cd
15
0.0 0.001 <,001
(.02?)
5
0.0 0.001
.001
20
0.0 '.01 .002
5
0.001 0.0
Co
2
0.0 .001
001
2
0.01 0.01
2
0.0
.002 .001
Cr
2
.01 .02 .02
7
0.0 <.01 0.0
6
0.0 0.09
Cu
19
■:.01 0.06 <.01
5
.001 .019
004
24
<.01 0.17 0.01
5
.001
.006 .002
Fe
15
0.13 11 1.6
15
.01 .16
03
20
.02 19 1.7
15
0.0
.10 .04
(.44?)
Hg
Li
14
0.0 <.001 <.0002
(.002?)
5
3
0.0 .0002
.03 .05
).0
03
19
0.0 <.0029 .0006
5
5
0.0
'.01
0.0030 0.0001
0.05 0.02
Mn
15
<.01 0.37 0.11
16
0.0 .03
01
18
.03 .54 .12
16
0.0
.03 .01
(.3?)
Mo
3
0.0 .003
002
4
0.0
.002 .002
Ni
5
.001 .073
002
5
.001
.02 .005
Pb
13
<.05 0.10 '.10
5
0.0 .004
002
20
-.10 '.05
5
0.0
.003 .001
Se
8
0.0 .004 .002
6
.001 .002
002
9
-.001 0.004 0.002
6
.001
.003 .002
Sr
6
.08 1.2 .40
3
.53 .65
60
6
.06 1.2 .41
3
.55
.64 .60
V
5
.0004 .002
002
8
'.05 0.18 .1
6
.0001
.001 .001
Zn
19
<.01 0.07 0.03
6
.01 .04
02
24
<.01 0.12 0.02
6
0.0
.03 .02
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg
aV: <.10. N=5.
bBe: <.01. N=2.
CAg: 0, N=2; Cr: <.01, N=6.
DO expressed as percentage of saturati
153
TABLE 62. Summary of miscellaneous constituent and trace element concentrations
measured in the Yellowstone River near Miles City.
Miscell
jneous
constituents and
dissolved
metals
Total
recoverable metals
N
Min
Max
Med
N
Min
Max
Med
COD
16
6
73
15
Color
15
1
11
6
DOa
45
66
117
97
NH3-N
16
0.01
0.41
0.13
Si
114
3.8
17
11
TOC
43
1.4
16
6.0
Al
3
<.01
0.03
0.01
3
1.9
9.0
2.2
As
3
<.01
0.03
0.01
11
<.001
0.03
0.009
B
53
.016
.224
.150
10
<.10
0.22
0.10
Be
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
1
—
—
<.01
Cd
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
<.001
0.003
<.001
Co
1
--
—
.01
Cr
3
0.0
.01
0.0
7
0.0
0.02
<.01
Cu
3
0.0
.002
.002
25
<.01
0.10
0.01
Fe
82
0.0
1.8
.02
24
.02
38
1.8
Hg
3
0.0
.0002
.0001
13
<.0002
0.001
0.0002
Li
4
<.01
0.05
0.03
Mn
17
0.0
.05
.005
23
.01
1.5
.12
Mo
3
.001
.003
.002
Ni
3
.002
.006
.003
Pb
3
.001
.002
.001
14
<.01
<.ll
<.05
Se
3
.001
.002
.001
6
<.001
0.002
0.001
Sr
5
.06
1.1
.42
V
3
.001
.002
.002
6
<.05
0.22
<.10
Zn
3
0.0
.02
0.0
25
<.01
0.27
0.02
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1 .
DO expressed as percentage of saturation.
154
problems other than being below the optimum level for drinking water. In con-
trast, the high arsenic and mercury levels observed in the upper river were ap-
parently carried into the Bighorn-to-Powder reach of the stream (tables 61 and
62). Upstream, arsenic occasionally violated the Public Health Service (1962)
standard for drinking water, although it was not at levels high enough to
necessitate a rejection of supply or to violate the NTAC and the EPA criteria
(table 9). Dissolved and TR concentrations of arsenic showed an overall de-
cline downstream with a lower frequency of violations in the Bighorn-to-Powder
reach. Arsenic was never at levels sufficient in the Yellowstone to exceed
the criteria for livestock and the aquatic biota.
Grab sample and median concentrations of mercury, both in its dissolved
and TR forms, often exceeded criteria for aquatic life. For example, of the
samples analyzed for mercury from the Bighorn-to-Powder reach with a sufficient
detection limit (to 1 ug/1), 29 percent had TR concentrations equal to or
greater than 2 ug/1, and 10 percent had TR concentrations between 10 ug/1 and
20 ug/1; between 45 percent and 81 percent of the samples had TR concentrations
equal to or greater than 1 ug/1- In measuring the dissolved concentrations,
46 percent of the samples had detectable levels of mercury (>1 yg/1), and 31
percent of the samples had levels equal to or greater than 2 u9/l • Grab sample
mercury concentrations also occasionally exceeded the EPA's criteria for public
water supplies, although they were not at levels sufficient to be harmful to
stock animals (California WQCB 1963).
Like mercury and arsenic, all of the remaining metals and trace elements
were detected in some of the samples from the Bighorn-to-Powder reach of the
Yellowstone, at least in their TR forms (tables 61 and 62). Although silica
declined downstream below Custer, the overall concentrations of these constit-
uents appeared to be somewhat higher in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach than in the
Laurel -to-Custer segment upstream. For example, the mean median TR and mean
median dissolved concentrations of nine metals that were consistently analyzed
at all sampling stations equalled 0.18-0.19 mg/1 and 0.079 mg/1 , respectively,
the in Laurel -to-Custer reach. Higher levels of 0.26-0.27 mg/1 and 0.089-
0.090 mg/1 were obtained in the Bighorn-to-Powder segment. In both reaches,
higher TR concentrations were obtained for the metals; about 43 percent of the
TR concentrations in the Laurel -to-Custer reach were in the dissolved form and
34 percent in the dissolved form downstream. Thus, the TR levels of the metals
apparently increased more between the Laurel -to-Custer and Bighorn-to-Powder
segments than their increased components; this is probably a function of the
higher sediment levels in the river below Custer. However, the concentration
increases of the TR and dissolved forms of Fe, Mn, and Sr from Custer to Miles
City were not as great or as consistent as they were in the river from Corwin
Springs to Custer. This can be seen in table 63. Greater TR over dissolved
concentrations of Sr and boron were evident in the Bighorn-to-Powder reach,
as in the upstream segment.
Several trace elements demonstrated high median and grab sample concentra-
tions, particularly in their TR forms, which may indicate water quality problems.
This includes silica, ammonia, Al , As, B, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Sr, V, and Zn; but
especially Al , Fe, Mn, and Sr. The high maximum concentrations of these vari-
ables were generally obtained in conjunction with high suspended sediment levels.
However, the concentrations of several other trace elements were low even in
the TR form, and, as a result, these variables probably would not detract from
155
any water uses. These constituents would include Ag, Be, Se, and Mo, particu-
larly, but also Cd, Co, and Li.
TABLE 63. Concentration increases of TR and dissolved forms of Fe, Mn, and Sr
in the Yellowstone River above Custer and at Myers, Forsyth, and Miles City.
Fe
Mn
Sr
TR
Dissolved
TR
Dissolved
TR
Dissolved
Yellowstone above Custer
A
0.42
0.020
0.04
0.013
0.08
0.208
B
0.55
--
0.11
--
0.19
--
C
0.62
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.23
0.408
D
1.5
0.084
0.39
0.029
0.30
0.455
Yellowstone at Myers
1.6
0.03
0.11
0.01
0.40
0.60
Yellowstone at Forsyth
1.7
0.04
0.12
0.01
0.41
0.60
Yellowstone at Miles City
1.8
0.02
0.12
0.005
0.42
--
Points A, B, C, and D represent sequential downstream reaches of the
Yellowstone River above Custer.
Of those trace elements demonstrating occasionally high TR levels, many
had low median TR concentrations or low dissolved concentrations. This would
indicate that Al , Cr, Cu, and V, and also Ba, Ni , and Pb caused no water qual-
ity problems as their median dissolved levels were well below various reference
criteria at all stations. Of the trace elements, therefore, ammonia, As, B, Fe
Hg, Mn, Sr, and Zn seem to have the greatest potential for causing water use
problems. This would exclude silica with median concentrations in the Bighorn-
to-Powder reach below the average for surface waters (Davis 1964).
Arsenic and mercury may cause water quality problems. Strontium concen-
trations do not appear to be at levels adequate to promote radiochemical pro-
blems for the reasons mentioned in the description of Beauvais Creek. Dissolve
boron levels were well below the criteria for public supply, stock animals, and
aquatic life, and they were well below the irrigation criteria for a Class I
water. Maximum and median dissolved manganese concentrations were also less
than these reference criteria; this was most obvious in zinc concentrations.
Median dissolved iron concentrations were also below the criteria for drinking
water and public supply, irrigation, and aquatic life; maximum dissolved values
at Myers and near Forsyth were also less than these levels. However, occasion-
ally high maximum levels of iron were obtained in the dissolved and TR componen
near Miles City, suggesting the development of iron-related water quality pro-
blems in the lower reach of the Yellowstone River. For example, about 7 percen
of the Yellowstone samples from the Miles City locations had dissolved iron
concentrations in excess of 0.2 mg/1 , and about 6 percent of the samples had
concentrations in excess of 0.3 mg/1.
Median ammonia concentrations were high in the Yellowstone River at
Huntley-Custer (table 36) and in the Bighorn River at its mouth (table 48).
As a result, high ammonia concentrations were also obtained in the Yellowstone
downstream of Custer. Median ammonia levels tended to decline from Custer to
156
Myers (comparing tables 36 and 61) and then show a steady downstream increase
from Myers to Miles City (tables 61 and 62). However, at the median pH levels
of the mainstem at Miles City, only about four to five percent of the ammonia
would be in the un-ionized and toxic, NH3 form (<0. 01 mg/1). This was also
true in the Yellowstone at Myers-Forsyth, and un-ionized ammonia concentrations
would be below the critical level established by the EPA (1973). Thus, ammonia
would not be present in the river as a toxicant to aquatic life, but it may be
a eutrophic factor. That is, if annual median ammonia-nitrogen concentrations
are added to the median inorganic nitrogen levels obtained from the various
stations below Custer, total soluble inorganic nitrogen (TSIN) concentrations
would exceed the nitrogen reference criteria for eutrophi cation during some
seasons, but not the criteria used by the EPA (1974b). However, these higher
TSIN levels apparently do not alter the non-eutrophic status of the Yellowstone
described previously.
During the critical summer-to-late fall period of high biological activity
in the river, the Yellowstone did not appear to be eutrophic as both TSIN and
P concentrations were below the corresponding reference levels; the river would
be more N- than P-limited during this August-to-October season. During the
less critical and biologically dormant seasons of winter and spring, TSIN con-
centrations generally exceeded the N criteria due to the seasonal nitrogen peak
at this time. Phosphorus was generally below its reference levels, establish-
ing the river as non-eutrophic and P-limited during the November- to-April .
During the May-to-July period, TSIN concentrations were below the N criteria,
but phosphorus exceeded its criteria due to the high-flow pulse of phosphorus
described previously. Thus, the river was non-eutrophic and distinctly N-
limited during this particular phase of the hydrologic cycle.
SARPY CREEK DRAINAGE
Sarpy Creek is a small intermittent tributary to the Yellowstone River;
however, it does have a rather extensive drainage area south of Hysham between
the Tullock and Armells Creek systems. During 1974, 35 percent of the measure-
ments taken showed zero flow in the stream and 56 percent of the flow measure-
ments were less than one cfs (USDI 1974). Sarpy Creek, therefore, would not
be expected to have a significant effect on the Yellowstone mainstem; its im-
portance lies in the fact that its headwaters are in an active strip mining
area. Because of this, considerable water quality data are available on its
upper drainage due to sampling programsinitiated for environmental impact
statements (USDI 1976). Data are also available from the USGS for a location
near the creek's mouth (USDI 1976), and from the state WQB.
The upper Sarpy Creek drainage has unusually poor water quality (table 64).
Although occasionally high concentrations of TSS were obtained upstream in the
creek, the 38,650 mg/1 reading is especially notable. Overall, TSS levels did
not significantly detract from the creek's quality; median TSS concentrations
were less than those in the Yellowstone River. Rather, the poor quality was
caused primarily by the extremely high TDS concentrations of the upper reaches--
median TDS levels were 4.5 to 11.6 times greater than those in the Yellowstone
River, depending upon season. As in most streams, TDS and flow were for the
most part inversely related in upper Sarpy Creek with extremely high concentra-
tions during the low flows of summer and low concentrations during the March-
157
ID
^r
o
p^
CO
o
CNJ
X)
CO
CNI
tn
CO
o
CO
CO
OJ
00
m
m
m
*T
CO
en
CO
o>
o
CO
o
CO
CO
o
CM
cr»
CO
en
CO
CNJ
o
O
o
o
>i X
in
m
o*
CO
co
o
CM
00
o
CO
in
*r
o
CNJ
o
CM
o
o
CT.
o
CO
3 z:
CM
m
CT»
in
CO
en
CM
*3-
CM
CO
rn
m
*^
=^
o
in
^
s: c
O
in
o
in
o
o~»
«3-
CO
CO
ON
o
CO
CNJ
O
o
CO
o
O
z
o
UD
o
o
CO
v
v
CO
CM
"
CNI
"
CNJ
IT)
**"
^
O
v
v
o
CO
cr»
m
C3N
o
CO
in
LO
00
00
00
z
*}■
CO
ON
en
en
en
in
CO
o
on
o
"O
o
CTt
CO
cr.
CO
CT>
O
o
o
01
o
o
o
CM
o
CO
CNJ
e:
*
CO
CNJ
CM
"
CO
'
<=r
*"
l—
"~
r~
CNJ
""*
CNJ
en
"*
■~
O
v
o
o
^
CO
CO
-<- X
o
o
CNJ
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
o
CO
o
o
S- fO
in
CNJ
LC
o.s:
***■
cr»
CO
m
m
"~"
CNJ
■""
in
CO
■~
CM
■"
en
•~
en
CO
CO
CNJ
■-
o
o
J-
u
m
S- c
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
CO
ON
s 2:
o
00
o
m
<£>
■<d-
o
cr.
CO
CO
CD
CNJ
00
o
CT»
o
^
CNJ
in
o
■o
o
o
o
ON
co
CO
^-
CO
CO
o
CNJ
o
OJ
o
O
o
cr.
o
O
s
o
o
r^
CM
CM
•—
•—
I**
*3"
■—
•—
CM
CT>
•—
CNJ
CNJ
LD
■*
1—
O
o
V
>1
J-
»o
CTt
O
O
cr.
C0
o
I- X
*3"
in
O
O
o
o
en
«n
CO
CTi
00
en
J3 T3
o
CTt
o
CM
CO
CD
CO
CD S
CO
lO
ON
CNJ
O
o
o
U.
S-
01
CO
X) c
o
o
CO
CO
CTi
a
o
o
00
o
CO
o
CO
O
00
qj s:
o
o
CM
CF>
00
o
O
o
o
z
CM
in
CD
CM
CO
CO
o
CM
O
r_
O
CO
CO
o
en
o
^
lO
CNJ
o>
CO
CNJ
CTi
"O
m
o
CD
co
o
CO
o
o
OJ
o
CO
CO
CO
=
o
00
■^T
<nnt
o
o
CO
o
o
s-
O
01
o
o
-O X
o
00
in
o
O
CO
O
o
CO
CD
o
O fl
CO
CO
in
CO
o
CTt
CO
-t-> S
o
CO
CO
00
CO
CO
o
u
o
+->
r*.
CM
^
CNJ
n
m
«a-
o
*^r
o
O
CD
«cr
<3-
CD
o
o
in
CO
CO
ens
o
O
o
<c
m
o
o
2:
CO
o
CO
o
CI
O
o
m
ro
CNJ
m
5
CL
.a
e
Q
C£
O
<d-
IE
l_>
Q
rj
o
O
o
CTt
X
a:
c_>
<c
o
u.
l~
CL
on
h-
1—
l—
o
CO
u-
o
s:
h-
z
N^
en
3:
l_
un
c_)
"-
^
a.
158
April peak flow period. This shows the influence of the earlier runoff period
in lowland prairie regions over mountainous drainages which, in turn, is re-
flected in mainstem discharge (secondary March-April peak) and TDS levels
(highest in March-April below Custer).
The waters in upper Sarpy Creek were slightly saline (moderately saline
in the summer), extremely hard, and they had a sodium sulfate composition char-
acteristic of many small streamsin eastern Montana. Sulfate concentrations were
high--about 50 percent of the TDS weight was sulfate. All dissolved constituents
were in greater concentrations in upper Sarpy Creek than in the Yellowstone
River, although fluoride, chloride, and potassium were minor ions. Calcium-
magnesium and bicarbonate were secondary constituents with magnesium concen-
trations greater than calcium concentrations. This suggests an extension of
the dolomitic formations into the Sarpy Creek drainage. The high TDS and high
ionic constituent concentrations preclude many water uses from the stream, in-
cluding that of surface water public supply--TDS and sulfate concentrations
are well above the reference criteria for this use (table 9). In addition,
although the overall TSS levels of the stream would not be expected to affect
the aquatic biota, TDS concentrations exceeded 1350 mg/1 and specific conduc-
tances greater than 2000 umhos/cm would indicate a detrimental influence on
freshwater life (Ellis 1944).
Upper Sarpy Creek has a poor Class III water for irrigation due to the
high TDS and sulfate concentrations (tables 15 and 16); the water has a very
high salinity hazard for this use but a low sodium hazard due to the low SAR
values (table 64). As indicated by the EPA (1976), water of this nature "...
can be used for tolerant plants on permeable soils with careful management
practices." Such tolerant crop and forage species are listed in table 17.
Regardless of water quality, however, the generally low flows in the upper
reach would probably eliminate the possibility for many of these uses. The
water quality in upper Sarpy Creek is only fair for application to stock ani-
mals (tables 10-14), and, due to the high TDS levels, it should not be used to
water poultry. Median sulfate and bicarbonate concentrations were consistently
greater than the limiting levels for stock animals, and magnesium concentra-
tions occasionally exceeded threshold levels. Extended consumption of these
high sulfate waters could be harmful to animals (California WRCB 1974). How-
ever, TDS concentrations decline downstream in Sarpy Creek to its mouth (table
65), suggesting that the waters in lower Sarpy Creek may be more suitable for
stock animals.
Sarpy Creek was unusual because it showed a general downstream improvement
in water quality and a reduction in TDS concentrations from about 23 percent to
37 percent, depending upon season; the reverse was found to be true in most
other streams. Sarpy Creek also showed a slight downstream increase in TSS
concentrations, but they were not noticeably high even in the lower reach, and
were not expected to significantly affect the aquatic biota.
As in the upper reach, salinity appeared to be the major problem in down-
stream quality, especially during the lower flows. The lower reach, therefore,
probably would not be suitable as a surface water public supply, due again to
the high TDS, sulfate, and hardness levels. Salinity may cause problems for
the aquatic biota in the lower reach, as median TDS concentrations exceeded
159
cn
co
0
CM
*T
ro
T3
0
0
co
O
ro
ro
CO
O
O
01
CO
CD
00
KO
CO
00
•r
s
O
co
0
O
OJ
CO
\o
CO
0
CO
cn
^r
O
O
CD
>, X
O
CO
CO
0
0
in
O
cn
*T
CO
O
CO
ro
CO
en
CO
0
0
CO
= s:
CO
CO
CO
CO
O
0
O
•-3
>>
ID
0
O
s: c
«3"
OJ
CO
0">
ID
in
ro
O
CM
ro
CD
C
CM
CO
CM
0
cr.
3E
O
CO
in
ro
OJ
O
O
CD
O
Z
CO
co
CO
co
u,
LD
m
m
OJ
-
CO
m
l£>
CD
-
CO
<x>
10
c.
UD
<3-
CO
CO
co
0
cn
-0
LO
O
0
O
<3"
CM
un
cr.
0
O
OJ
«d-
"d"
O
0
«3"
CO
LO
^-
CM
s:
r—
oj
CO
C\J
r™
CM
ro
■""
ro
lo
CO
cr.
VO
OJ
CO
"3-
**
ro
^
'"
O
O
O
_
in
0
en
OJ
CO
o~
LO
0
•X)
O
cr»
CO
cr.
VO
IC
cn
ro
l- fO
CO
0
CO
O
en
IT)
CO
CO
Q-E
CO
<=*■
en
cr>
K£>
O
CD
O
<
.c
0
i_ c
O
0
<*D
O
ra t-
O
0
en
0
O
CO
0
s s
0
cn
O
cr.
*3"
<d-
O
CD
CD
^
en
*d-
-
-
„
*3"
*.
-
OJ
OJ
„
co
«
CO
OJ
m
00
00
00
ro
OJ
ro
CO
0
CD
TO
cn
CO
0
CO
0
U3
O
<=T
O
O
01
ro
<x>
0
en
0
cr.
5:
>—
O
CO
CM
r—
<^T
f^
'—
OJ
•—
CO
f^
LO
ro
Cr.
r^-
co
«^-
f^
•—
O
O
C^
=->
i_
0
O
lo
O
CO
CD
0
O
CO
O
0
O
OJ
S- (O
en
VO
O
O
O
0
-Q S
•-
co
CO
ro
CM
rO
cn
•—
ro
OJ
■—
'-
CO
CO
•-
cn
CO
f^*
•—
CM
O
CD
c
L?
s!_
0) c
0
CO
CO
CM
0
0
CO
O
CD
-Q "f-
CO
CO
CO
CO
a\
E S
0
0
r->
C\J
•—
CO
CO
CO
OJ
f—
■—
CO
f^
OJ
r--
-—
CO
r^
KD
ro
cr
O
O
>
O
Z
■z.
en
CO
cn
cn
O^
cn
OJ
en
OJ
OJ
cn
cr.
en
en
^
cr.
cn
CT>
cr.
Cn
CO
CO
cn
0
cn
cr.
TD
CO
CO
m
O
<3"
O
0
01
vo
O
Dr
0
CO
CO
ro
CO
1
tn
1
1
^~
r-
^
co
r"
CO
LO
<*
'""
"""
O
O
CD
j_
co
0
0
O
0
0
CO
LO
01 X
00
0
ao
^r
0
O
O
O
CO
0
O
_o fl
CO
<-r
cn
m
CO
CM
0
CO
ro
0 2:
0
CO
*d-
CO
CO
CO
ro
O
O
O
u
0
OJ
0
0
0
0
,_
0
0
OJ
«a-
C7>
CO
0
O
CO
0
0
00
O
O
ro
CO
cr»
n
*3"
0
10
=3 S
0
CO
CT»
^
cr.
O
O
O
CT
3
<
^
ro
"
ro
m
ro
CO
O
OJ
0
0
ro
CO
ro
CO
OJ
m
"
ro
ro
ro
OO
OO
00
3
a.
j3
ro
0
(-0
0
a:
O
aj
nr
t_>
13
ZJ
0
0
cn
«c
c_J
<t
CO
u-
l~
°-
a>
h"
*"
1—
0
CD
"■
O
2:
l_
^
^
1/1
31
*"
00
(_>
U-
zz
o_
160
1350 mg/1 and specific conductances exceeded 2000 ymhos/cm. Furthermore, the
waters would have a high or very high salinity hazard for irrigation. Because
of the downstream reduction in TDS concentrations, the lower reach waters
would have good quality for stock (Seghetti 1951), although bicarbonate and
sulfate concentrations were still greater than the limiting levels for animals
(California WQCB 1963).
A change in chemical composition became evident in Sarpy Creek, probably
a reflection of intermediate inputs with a different water quality diluting the
TDS concentrations. In general, calcium plus magnesium and sulfate concentra-
tions declined downstream, sodium levels increased significantly, and bicar-
bonate declined slightly. Fluoride, chloride, and potassium continued to be
insignificant constituents of the water. The stream near Hysham tended to
become more sodium sulfate; the average (Ca + Mg):Na ratio declined from 1.39
to 0.55, and the average HC03:S0a value increased slightly from 0.44 to 0.55.
The average Ca:Mg ratio increased to the lower reach from 0.60 to 0.95, indi-
cating that the intermediate inputs to Sarpy Creek were probably sodium sulfate-
bi carbonate and not derived from dolomitic regions.
The lower reach's water samples showed higher SAR values (table 65). As
a result, the lower reach had a median sodium hazard for irrigation. Overall,
the lower segment of Sarpy Creek appears to have a poor quality, borderline
Class I I/Class III water for irrigation (tables 15 and 16), and the low summer
flows may eliminate the use of the stream for irrigation altogether.
Sarpy Creek has been classified a B-D3 stream by the State of Montana
(Montana DHES, undated), although the water-use description for this classifi-
cation is not very appropriate for the water quality in the stream. Because
of the water's high TDS concentrations, Sarpy Creek does not appear to be
"... suitable for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes . . ."
(Montana DHES, undated), and it does not appear to be suitable for the ". . .
propagation of non-salmonid fishes ..." (Montana DHES, undated). Its value
as an agricultural supply is also questionable. High inorganic nitrogen and
ammonia concentrations, which might have been derived from explosives used in
strip mining activities in the region, were occasionally obtained from the
stream. Also, ammonia levels appeared to be sufficiently high at times (table
66) to be potentially toxic to the aquatic biota through the pH levels of the
water--un-ionized, gaseous ammonia was sometimes in excess of 0.02 mg/1 (USEPA
1973).
Other physical characteristics indicate, however, that Sarpy Creek's B-D3
classification is appropriate. For example, the pH and dissolved oxygen levels
were in accord with the criteria for a B-D3 water, and the high maximum temper-
atures were also normal for this classification. Also, fecal coliform concentra-
tions declined downstream and did not generally suggest water quality problems
in either the upper or the lower segment (tables 8 and 9). The creek was defin-
itely non-eutrophic as both median nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were
below the reference criteria.
The upper drainage of Sarpy Creek appears to be organically polluted to
some extent with high BODc concentrations; median values were generally greater
than those obtained in other streams. However, this pollution does not appear
to be caused directly by municipal discharge due to the low fecal coliform
161
•■Titration*, measured in the Sarpy Greet
Upper Sarpy Creek drai
age near West™-.
Sarpy Creek near Hysham
N
Med
Dissolved metals
Max Med
N
Miscellaneous
fs and
total recoverable
metals
Min Max
Di
s solved
Min
metals
Max
1
Med
Br
COD
26
11 193 38
5 150
D0b
14
16 108 80
NH3-N
29
O.f 3.2
O&G
0.0 14.4 2
S
0.0 0.0 0.0
Si
6
0.0 14.5 9.9
14
0.8 12 8.5
Al
19
.05 3.9
30 0.0 <.01 <.01
4
.11 1.5 .27
2
0.0
0.01
.005
11
0.0 .011 .002
2
.001
.002
.002
B
3
.16 .51 .33
14
.11
.68
.32
Ba
2
.06
.07
.07
Be
2
<.01
2
0.0
<.01
Cd
30
<.001 0.016 <.002
13
0.0 0.02 <.01
2
0.0
.001
.001
Co
2
.04 .08 .06
2
<.015
<.016
<.016
Cr
32
<.005 0.04 0.009
(.177?)
10
0.0 0.04 .003
2
0.0
<.01
Cu
42
■■•.002 0.06 0.01
13
2
.001
.003
.002
Fe
107
<.02 22 0.39
69 0.0 0.60 0.07
13
.14 11 .60
14
.01
.41
.07
Hg
36
<.O001 0.007 0.001
11
0.0 -=.001 .0001
2
0.0
<.0001
<.0001
Li
2
.02 .07 .045
2
.04
.08
.06
Hn
.009 1.1 .15
11
.02 .69 .17
(6.0?)
2
.05
.13
.09
Ho
2
<.005
<.005
■ .005
Ni
42
.003 .08 .01
2
.001
.005
.003
Pb
10
0.10 -.10
2
.001
.003
.002
Se
10
0.0 .001 0.0
Sr
2
1.5
2.5
2.0
V
2
.04 .53 .29
2
•J.008
<.008
<.008
Zn
43
<.005 0.09 0.012
-
<.01 0.12 0.04
2
.01
.01
.01
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1 .
aAg: -=.002, N=2; Se: 0.0. N=l .
00 expressed as percentage of
162
(tables 64 and 65) and oil and grease (table 66) concentrations, although it
might ultimately have been derived from this source via groundwater inputs.
As alternatives, the high B0D5 levels could have been derived from the same
sources as the high nitrogen concentrations or from concentrated soil extracts
reaching the stream. The latter alternative would probably color the water,
aesthetically degrading the stream; the upper Sarpy samples were noticeably
colored (table 66). Organic pollution from some source was also indicated by
the upper creek's high COD levels and in the low percentage of DO saturations
near Hysham. The B0D5 concentrations appeared to be significantly diluted by
the time the stream reached its mouth, and they were of insufficient magnitude
to consistently reduce the stream's DO concentrations to levels in violation
of the state criteria for a B-D3 stream.
Most of the trace elements were detected in at least some of the samples
from Sarpy Creek (table 66). High TR concentrations were obtained in some in-
stances, especially Fe and Mn, but also Al , B, Sr, Si, and V. Some of the
minor constituents--Ag, Be, Br, Mo, and S--were never detected in the samples.
Several of the remaining minor constituents—As, Cr, Li, Ni , and Se--may cause
water quality problems due to their low median and maximum TR concentrations.
In some cases, median TR or dissolved levels were below various criteria, but
occasional samples--Cd, Co, Cu, Pb, V, and Zn--had TR concentrations in excess
of reference levels. These six constituents probably did not indicate water
quality problems in Sarpy Creek, but they would be more likely to than the
trace elemenets mentioned previously.
Median TR concentrations of Al , Fe, and Mn exceeded various water quality
criteria, indicating that these trace elements are potentially limiting. How-
ever, as the median dissolved concentrations of the first two parameters were
less than the reference levels, Al , Fe, and Mn probably did not detract from
water use except in a few instances when dissolved levels were high (e.g., in
14 percent of the samples, iron concentrations were greater than 0.3 mg/1).
B, Ba, Si, and Sr did not indicate water quality problems. Of the trace ele-
ments, therefore, mercury seems to have the greatest potential to affect the
aquatic biota and other water uses, particularly in the upper reach of Sarpy
Creek. Additional data would be necessary, however, to more fully assess the
extent of this possible effect.
ARMELLS CREEK DRAINAGE
Armells Creek is another small tributary to the Yellowstone River, and is
not expected to have a substantial effect on mainstem quality. Armells Creek
probably has a greater tendency towards perennial ity than Sarpy Creek. Armells
Creek also drains an active strip mining area with a coal-fired electrical
generating facility, and, as a result, a great deal of water quality information
has recently been gathered on the stream by the USGS (USDI 1976) and by the
state WQB (Montana DNRC 1974). The USGS maintains three sampling stations in
the drainage as indicated in tables 67-69, and the more dispersed collections
of the state WQB were combined in conjunction with these three USGS locations.
Many of the water quality features observed in Sarpy Creek also occur in
Armells Creek. However, certain differences are evident. Both streams had
high TDS concentrations, which significantly degrade the water quality. This
163
IT)
0
O
0
O
cn
CO
T3
O
O
0
CO
CM
O
in
O
LT>
en
CO
O
0
0
gj
*r
m
CO
cn
£
CO
O
ro
O
lT)
cn
CO
*3"
O
ro
cn
O
ro
CO
*3-
0
0
cn
0
ro
>> x
CO
en
in
cn
CO
O
co
CO
CO
O
VO
CO
Cn
O
u->
cn
ro
CO
CO
"= s:
CO
CO
00
CO
CO
cn
CO
0
0
O
^
0
en
ro
2: c
T
O
CO
en
V£>
0
cn
Cn
0
^j-
0
O
OJ
00
CO
CO
O
ro
CO
£
Cn
<T»
CSJ
ro
O
cn
cn
CO
0
cn
0
0
0
zr
CO
CD
CO
CO
-
CO
ro
CO
*d-
-
CO
CO
CO
CO
-
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
-
CO
CO
CO
0
0
0
0
■0
O
0
in
CO
00 .— *
CO
0
0
0
UD
CO
0
0
0
<U
0
CO
CO
cn
CO
0
0
2:
CM
"—
CO
ro
ro
,—
CNJ
cn
CM
O
CNJ
CNJ
r~
ro
r"
ro
cn
*3-
CO
CNJ
0
0
0
O
0
CO
cn
cn
0
CO
0
co
CO
0
cn
*3-
CO
CO
CO
s- <o
0
CO
CO
cn
CO
O
0
o-e:
CO
CO
*3-
^r
CO
CO
co
0
0
<
_c
S- c
O
0
<d-
CD
cn
cn
stj-
0
0
0
TO -r-
0
0
CO
2: 2:
O
0
■3-
CO
O
CO
□
0
0
z
ON
ON
<T>
en
cn
cn
cn
CO
cn
cn
a^
cn
cn
cn
-
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
CO
OS-
cn
0
0
CO
0 cn
0
0
■a
CO
cn
0
0
0
CD
0
0
O
a)
cn
«=r
O r—
• cn
*3-
CO
O
^3-
cn
CO
2:
"—
0
F"*
ro
CNJ
■3"
CM
■
0 —
0
CNl
CNJ
<—
co
CM
CO
cn
*3-
r—
«3-
0
CD
O
>>
s_
0
O
O
O
CD
0
CO
CO
3 X
cn
0
CO
■"^r
0
0
O
O
0
cn
0
cn
S- (O
CO
CO
O
cn
CO
CO
O
co
-O SI
CO
«=!-
■3-
^
0
**
CM
CO
in
CO
0
0
0
aj
LL.
i-
cn
u->
CO
<D c
0
0
CD
CO
O
0
0
0
-O -i-
cn
0
CO
E 2:
O
0
C\J
CO
0
0
0
<^-
0
0
0
ai
0
1ZL
Z
■"*
r~
r-
r-
■"*
'*■
CNJ
^
^
CNJ
r~~
r-
^
r~
LT>
r"
***
■*"
r-
^
m
■"*
""*
O
O
^3-
ro
-O
0
00
cn
CD
0
CO
0
O
ai
CO
CO
CO
2:
■""
■~~
00
ro
CO
CvJ
1
cn
"■"
1
r_
r—
l—
CNJ
*~~
ro
cn
"*
"~
"*
0
0
O
s_
0
0
<3-
CO
O
O
CO
c^
CO
a> x
CO
CO
O
CO
_Q <TJ
cn
CO
CO
CO
O
cn
cn
0
CO
0 2:
CO
CsJ
CO
0
CD
0
0
0
0
O
O
CD
ro
CO
+J c
0
0
ro
O
co
CD
LD
co
CO
0
CD
0
O
CO
njO
0
CO
=1 2:
0
co
co'
CO
O
CO
CO
0
O
0
Cn
3
«T
=
«=r
co
«d-
"*
*d"
"*
0
CM
CNJ
O
*
■*
«d"
"*
CM
■*
*
•sT
^3"
*
■*
"*
"»
3
O.
JO
0
E
O
C£
0
s^r
0}
JZ
O
O
=3
0
O
O
cn
DZ
<C
0
<
0
u"
1—
a.
tn
'"
1—
h-
Q
CQ
0
2:
l~
z
^
cn
DI
l_
cn
c_>
u-
Z
°-
164
en
O
O
0
O
CM
*T
TJ
O
O
0
0
0
O
m
CO
O
CO
O
O
<U
CO
cn
O
0
m
co
CT*
"J
CO
00
O
•3-
O
CO
CM
0
CDN
0
in
*r
CM
O
r(
O
O
CM
CD
O
CO
O
0
0
0
UD
CO
O
«3"
CM
O
O
CD
O
CO
CO
en
CM
<-o
CM
=> 21
00
CO
CO
CM
v£>
CO
CO
O
O
O
^
>s
O
0
O
0
O
en
0
CT>
O
0
0
0
CD
O
O
CO
ro
CO
ex.
O
t
£
O
m
m
CD
O
CO
CO
*
ro
O
O
O
=
LD
«,
cn
cn
CO
en
O
en
en
0
en
en
en
cn
en
cn
en
cn
cn
en
cn
cn
cn
O
0
LO
0
0
•O
xO
0
<dn
en
CD
f^.
CO
^J
"1
CO
0
en
CO
CDN
CO
CM
m
00
0
O
ON
ON
*
0
O
S
r~
CO
r*"
**
•=3"
r~
CM
"""
r—
CO
CM
CM
■""
CO
■""
cr»
VO
en
CM
""■
O
0
0
O
0
CO
■sf
CM
CD
CD
cn
_
0
O
«3-
0
0
0
0^
CO
^-
O
CO
O
1- TJ
co
CO
0
ON
en
0
<3-
O
o-s:
CO
CO
CDN
CO
O
O
0
«t
-5
CO
O
CO
CO
O
ON
CO
0
CD
0
0
CO
CIO
Cn
00
2: e:
CD
O
CO
0
0
ro
CO
0
O
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
CO
-
m
-
-
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
-
■JD
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
-
-
0
0
O
O
O
CO
0
0
0
O
O
CO
O
0
O
0
CO
0
0
CO
en
ON
**
CO
E
0
CM
fN.
en
en
CO
*—
■—
CM
0
-—
•—
•—
CO
•—
CO
*d-
^~
CM
CM
O
0
0
^
0
0
O
O
O
CD
CO
3 X
CD
en
0
CD
0
CD
O
O
CO
O
CO
O
CO
0
CO
cn
CM
ON
-Q ^
cn
CO
«*
CM
CO
O
O
O
OJ
U.
s-
,_
CM
O
0> e
0
O
<d-
0
O
O
CO
KO
O
X) -i-
CM
CO
O
O
O
O
O
e 2:
0
O
r-N
CNJ
CNJ
UD
0
CO
"X>
ON
CO
CJ
CO
CD
O
O
>
0
■ZL
^
'*■■
^
0
O
-o
0
0
O
E
■O
0
O
CO
^
O
1
,__!
^
,
0
O
O
0
0
CM
^
00
|Z
5
O
CO
«,.
CM
O
O
■*"
2:
0
U~)
CO
co
en
CM
1
•~
•~
1
■""
■""
""
*"
■*
co
CO
• T
O
O
O
■0
L.
£
CU
cu
.0 X
L.
O <T3
O.
w s:
X
CJ
0
«j
■M
%n c
C
3 «r-
CI
ai
<E
3
CJ
^
UJ
O
3
CL
JD
m
0
CD
a:
0
5
3:
C_3
Q
3
0
0
0
DZ
<
C_)
•:
0
u-
1—
Q.
C/N
h-
^~
1—
Q
CO
""
c_>
s:
1—
z
^
w>
32
"""
on
<->
""
Z
o_
165
0
0
0
"O
*T
NO
in
O
O
O
in
O
CO
CO
m
0
0
0
OJ
cr»
ON
CO
*r
CO
~
CO
s:
,--0
CM
00
X
O
m
0
CM
O
u->
CO
CNJ
CNJ
ON
O
NO
en
CO
CO
0
CNJ
0
0
CM
0
ON
>> x
CO
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
CO
0
0
.^
O.
CO
CO
a
Ol
zj s:
CNJ
00
«tf
CNJ
ro
CO
u">
CM
PJ
0
0
0
■"3
>,
0
0
e: c
kO
0
O
O
0
ro
CM
cr»
0
U")
0
0
ro
CO
m
CT>
CO
CM
0
O
2:
00
UD
■3-
UD
CO
CO
CNJ
u.
0
0
*
z
-
CO
00
CO
-
-
CO
ko
-
-
CO
00
00
CO
«
CO
CO
CO
CO
00
NO
CO
CC
0
0
0
CM
CM
ro
-0
0
O
NO
CTt
0
0
0
0
O
CD
*3"
CO
CO
O
:r
0
EI
"*
r"*
CO
en
CNJ
co
\D
"""
CO
•■"
r-
01
NO
tn
r"
CT>
"*
CO
r"
c^
0
0
O
_
0
0
O
0
O
CO
O
^
•r- X
0
CO
0
CD
0
O
0
CO
O
0
s- *o
«X»
<3-
0
NO
*3"
CM
0
0
UO
0.21
00
^J"
^j-
en
CM
co
vO
0
0
C
<:
.c
u
O
0
IX>
i~ c
0
cr»
CD
CA
0
O
O
O
CO
0
O
CO
LD
CO
0
O
ro
00
O
^r
CO
0
CO
e: e:
CNJ
0
vO
en
0
LO
"
0
0
O
2:
CX*
ON
on
0.
00
O.
-
en
on
-
00
00
CO
CC
-
CO
00
CO
CO
CO
VO
00
CO
O
0
0
ro
■0
0
<X»
0
0
0
0
0
0
0)
ro
O
CO
0
CO
*J-
0
CD
e;
■—
0
c"-
CO
CN)
CNJ
CNJ
•—
CO
CNJ
•—
NO
u->
<3-
•—
en
LT>
^~
1—
CNJ
0
0
0
>i
S-
CM
0
O
ro
0
O
0
0
0
CM
r^
OJ
ro
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
cr.
0
NO
S- fO
^O
O
CO
CTN
0
<x>
«3-
en
.0 2:
00
<x>
*3-
CM
ro
0
O
O
CD
^
S-
<3-
,3-
,_
CD C
0
ui
CO
CD
O
O
O
XI f-
CTt
"3-
ro
cr>
e 2:
O
0
m
NO
en
0
O
CO
<x>
CO
0
O
O
<D
>
O
^
CNJ
CM
CM
CVJ
CSJ
CM
z:
«3"
O
O
-0
^
NO
*
O
O
^.
1
*
"]
,
UD
CM
O
CO
0
*3-
"1
VD
CO
co
0
O
CNJ
m.
O
O
e:
O
■""
CO
<3-
CO
■"
1
en
CM
'
<X>
CO
*
00
en
"~
in
un
""
CNJ
CD
O
O
s_
0J
0
O
O
O
XI X
<d-
0
0
0
O
liO
O
O T3
CO
0
0
CO
NO
CO
UD
^3-
-»-> 2:
CNJ
CM
00
■3"
CO
LT)
1
•—
CO
1
CO
■—
r^
en
-—
■—
UO
uo
CM
CNJ
0
O
O
0
^_,
UD
O
0
O
, —
CM
O
O
0
O
00
0
0
CO
0
O
O
O
CD
NO
CO
vO
OiZ
O
06
no
O
O
<:
-
-
-
CO
-
"*
*
0
«=J-
•
O
-
-
■=r
^r
*"T
-
-
■*
*
-
-
-
-
3
Q.
XI
CO
0
l/l
Q
CC
O
<D
31
0
O
3
0
CD
O
en
<t
O
<
O
"-
ex.
tsi
*~
'"*
H-
£3
CO
U_
<_>
2:
l—
z
^
on
^
l—
UO
0
""
-z.
a.
166
was especially noticeable in the moderately saline east and west forks of
Armells Creek. For the most part, Armells Creek was much more saline than
Sarpy Creek. Armells Creek was slightly saline at its mouth and demonstrated
a downstream improvement in water quality and a decrease in TDS concentrations.
The inverse relationship between flow and TDS was not well defined in Armells
Creek, and, as a result, lowest TDS concentrations were not necessarily ob-
tained during high-flow periods. This marking of flow-TDS relationships seems
typical of small prairie streams.
Like Sarpy Creek, Armells Creek had a sodium sulfate composition which
tended to become more pronounced downstream; this can be shown by the mean
(Ca + Mg):Na and HCC^iSC^ ratios from each station as follows in table 70.
TABLE 70. Mean (Ca + Mg):Na and HC03:S04 ratios from the mouth and east and
west forks of Armells Creek.
(Ca + Mg):Na HC03:S04
Mouth 0.35 0.31
East Fork 1.57 0.27
West Fork 0.47 0.19
Calcium-magnesium and bicarbonate were secondary ions in Armells Creek, and
fluoride, chloride, and potassium were insignificant components. Due to the
low (Ca + Mg):Na ratios, SAR values in Armells Creek were much higher than
those in Sarpy Creek, creating a low-medium (east fork) to medium- very high
(west fork and mainstem) sodium hazard for irrigation. Chloride levels were
somewhat higher than those in Sarpy Creek, and sulfate concentrations were es-
pecially high in the more eastern stream. Magnesium concentrations generally
exceeded calcium levels in the upper drainage of Armells Creek, and Ca:Mg
ratios then declined downstream to the creek's mouth.
The high TDS and constituent concentrations in Armells Creek would be ex-
pected to affect many of the water uses described for Sarpy Creek. The west
fork water would be poor or unfit as a source for stock animals, and waters in
the east fork and mainstem would of only fair quality for this use (California
WRCB 1951). None of these waters should be used for poultry. The high sulfate
and bicarbonate concentrations in the creek would further degrade the water as
a source for stock animals since these constituents exceeded limiting levels
(tables 10-14). Also as a result of these features, Armells Creek, with its
very hard water, would be particularly unsuitable as a source for municipal
supply. In terms of irrigation, Armells Creek would have a poor quality, Class
III water due to high SAR, sulfate, TDS, and specific conductance (very high
salinity hazard) levels (tables 15 and 16). Boron, however, should not affect
this use (<1 mg/1). Thus, the water in this creek would not be applicable to
a variety of salinity-sensitive and semi-tolerant crop and forage species as
summarized in table 17. In addition, the high TDS levels would be expected to
have an adverse effect on the aquatic biota (Ellis 1944).
TSS concentrations in Armells Creek were not high in comparison to many
other streams. They were generally similar to those in Sarpy Creek, and
167
median values were less than those observed in the Yellowstone River. Occasion
ally high values were obtained in correspondence to high flows, but TSS would
not be expected to have as great an effect on the aquatic biota as would salin-
ity. Armells Creek has been designated a warm-water, B-D3 stream by the State
of Montana; however, like Sarpy Creek, its water quality does not appear to
conform to the water-use description of this classification, due primarily to
high salinities. Dissolved oxygen, pH, fecal coliform, and temperature levels
were generally in accord with this classification.
BOD5 levels in Armells Creek did not indicate organic pollution; this was
generally substantiated by the high DO saturations (tables 71-73). In addition
Armells Creek did not appear to be eutrophic as it had low inorganic nitrogen
concentrations (tables 67-69) during all seasons. Phosphorus concentrations
were also low, and median values exceeded the P criteria only at certain sea-
sons in the east fork and mainstem of Armells Creek. Thus the creek appeared
to be N-limited. However, high inorganic nitrogen and ammonia levels (tables
71-73) were occasionally obtained, but only in samples from the east fork; this
segment of Armells Creek was directly associated with strip mining activities.
Median ammonia concentrations were not at levels high enough to alter the eutro
phic status of the stream or to be toxic to aquatic organisms.
A variety of trace elements were analyzed in the Armells Creek samples as
a result of the stream's juxtaposition to strip mining and electrical generatin
facilities. With the exception of silica (concentrations were below levels
typical of surface waters, Sr, and ammonia, trace elements in Armells Creek can
be separated into six groups on the basis of their maximum and median, TR and
dissolved concentrations in relation to the water quality criteria. The six
classes, ranked according to their potentials to detract from water quality,
are summarized in table 74.
As seen in tables 71-73, most of the trace elements, except those in Group
I on table 74, were detected in at least a few of the samples. In some instanc
constituents were detected in a large percentage of the collections and were
found in high concentrations. As observed in other streams, Al , B, Fe, Mn, Sr,
and V were most noticeable. However, the high concentrations of many consti-
tuents were generally obtained in the TR form with dissolved levels comparativ-
ely low. Therefore, most of the trace elements, including ammonia and stron-
tium, would not be expected to detract from the water quality of Armells Creek
(that is, the trace elements included in Groups I through IV in table 74).
Of the 29 trace elements, Ba, Fe, Hg, and Mn may cause occasional water
quality problems at particular locations, as dissolved levels sometimes ex-
ceeded certain reference criteria. In the upstream reaches, mercury may some-
times influence the aquatic biota (table 19), and barium may detract from the
value of downstream waters as a source for irrigation. However, iron and
manganese are probably more obvious problems to the creek's use; iron could
affect the aquatic biota and lower the value of the stream as a surface water
public supply, and manganese could detract from its potential for irrigation
(tables 15 and 16) and human consumption. The poor water quality in Armells
Creek is caused primarily by its extremely saline nature, which probably exerts
a more direct effect on water use than do any of the trace elements.
168
E •
CD CD
i — CT)
CD CO
QJ -r-
O ro
fO S-
S- -o
+->
"O CD
C CD
ro S-
**
co
T3
o
o
U")
CD CD
i— s:
o
o
o
o
JO
ro
S-
oo
ro
CNJ
o
CD l/l X
O
o
CTi
oo
> i— to
ores:
o
o
o
o
CJ +J
CD CD
1 —
S- E
o
oo
LT)
-*:
c:
o
o
CM
o
CD
CD
<o s:
V
o
o
o
S-
+->
o
o
I—
to
z
CTi
CTi
CTi
CTi
CD
E
t-
<c
■=*-
(
lO
-^
■o
O
'd-
LT>
o
S-
"O to CD
r~-
o
C r— S
CO
O
co
o
o
u.
l/l re r0
3 -t->
+->
O i/) CD
CNJ
to
CD +-> E X
ro
r-^
'd-
CD
c c re
O
en
3
re <d "O s:
i- 3 ID
CD -i- .—
O
C\J
O
CO
o
<_>+-> O C
O
O
1 —
o
to to to •<—
CTl
•r- c to s:
"3"
O
o
o
s: o -r-
CJ T3
CO
CO
CO
to
CO
i_n
00
■o
O
o
<*
CD CD
r- s:
V
o
o
o
-Q
03
s-
OJ
<3-
U in x
o
o
r^
o
> r- f0
o «z
o
o
(XI
oo
o +->
CD CD
S- E
o
00
J*r.
c
o
o
o
o
CD
CD
"3 s:
V
V
o
V
i~
+->
O
o
h-
oo
p~-
oo
r-^
to
^
• —
1 —
1 —
i —
1 —
CD
E
s_
<
«*
,
CO
jti
T3
i —
LO
[--
o
i~
"O to CD
O
o
C r- s:
CTi
o
r-^
o
o
Ll_
I/) ro (0
3 +->
+->
O l/l o
r-»
CO
to
CD +-> E X
in
1 —
CTi
1 —
ro
c c ro
o
r-^
LlI
ro CD T3 S:
r-3 0)
i— 4-> >
CD T- r—
CM
o
CM
o
CNJ
<_) 4-> O C
o
*d-
■ —
o
to i/i to •l—
r^
•^- c to si
CD
o
i —
o
o
s: o -r-
o -o
LO
CO
CO
CO
LO
■z
(O
OO
O
:n
■o
13
(D
c
O
z
m
CO
c_>
o
ll-
s:
169
TABLE 72. Summary of trace element concentrations measured in the Armells Creek
drainage.
East and west forks
East
and \
vest fork
s
N
Dissolved
Min
metals
Max
Med
Total
N
recoverable me
Min Max
tals
Med
Ag
2
<.002
<.004
<.004
Al
3
0.0
.03
.01
10
.02
.30
.14
As
3
.001
.002
.001
16
0.0
.006
.001
B
5
.21
.75
.40
Ba
2
.02
.06
.04
Be
3
0.0
.01
.01
17
0.0
0.01
<.01
Cd
3
0.0
.001
0.0
Co
3
.07
.08
.07
Cr
3
0.0
.01
.002
18
0.0
.04
.01
Cu
3
0.0
.016
.001
Hg
3
0.0
.0001
0.0
25
0.0
.001
.0003
Li
.2
.05
.10
.075
17
<.01
0.13
0.05
Mn
3
0.0
.25
.04
Mo
2
.002
.002
.002
14
0.0
.003
.001
Ni
3
0.0
.004
.004
14
0.0
.15
<.05
Pb
3
.002
.004
.003
16
0.0
.100
<.100
Se
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
17
0.0
.004
0.0
Sr
2
1.7
5.0
3.4
V
2
.0016
.0017
.0017
3
.42
.71
.50
Zn
3
.01
.02
.02
23
0.0
.14
.01
NOTE:
aGa:
Measurements are expressed in mg/1.
<.03, N=2; Bi, Co, Sn, Ti : <.04, N=2; Ge, Zr: <.05, N=2.
170
TABLE 73. Summary of miscellaneous constituent and trace element concentrations
measured in Armells Creek near Forsyth.
Miscellaneous
constituents and
dissolved
metals
j
Total
re cove
rable metals
N
Min
Max
Med
N
Min
Max
Med
D0b
22
69
137
95
NH3-N
22
0.0
0.16
0.04
Si
22
1.2
14
6.9
Al
2
.01
.01
.01
6
.21
2.2
.64
As
2
.001
.002
.002
14
0.0
<.01
.002
B
22
.14
.60
.47
5
<.10
0.58
0.20
Ba
2
.082
.100
.091
Be
2
0.0
<.01
<.01
15
0.0
0.02
<.01
Cd
19
<.001
0.02
0.01
Co
4
.03
.08
.07
Cr
2
<.01
0.01
0.01
16
0.0
.064
0.01
Cu
2
.001
.003
.002
19
<.01
0.30
0.01
Fe
22
0.0
.51
.03
19
.16
9.7
.75
Hg
18
0.0
.004
.0002
Li
2
.03
.04
.04
15
<.01
0.06
0.03
Mn
2
.06
.21
.14
17
.03
.33
.19
Mo
2
<.006
<.006
<.006
(.002)
11
0.0
.005
.002
Ni
2
.003
.006
.005
11
<.05
0.10
0.05
Pb
2
0.0
.003
.002
13
<.01
0.10
<.10
Se
15
0.0
0.001
<.001
Sr
2
1.5
2.6
2.1
V
2
<.008
<.008
<.008
(.0023)
3
.03
.72
.39
Zn
2
<.01
0.02
--
14
<.01
0.04
0.02
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1 .
aCd, Se: 0.0; Hg: <.0001; Ag: <.002; Co, Ga, Sn, Ti : <.02; Bi , Ge: <.03;
Zr: <.04; N=2.
DO expressed as percentage of saturation.
171
TABLE 74. Trace elements in Armells Creek grouped according to their maximum
and median, TR and dissolved concentrations in relation to water quality criter
Group
TR
Dissolved
Comments
Max Med
Max Med
I
Undetected
Undetected
No problems anticipated.
II
< <
< <
No problems anticipated.
III
> <
< <
Water quality problems doubtful.
IV
> >
< <
Low probability of continuous problems.
V
> >
> <
Occasional water quality problems.
VI
> >
> >
High probability of continuous problems.
NOTE: TR and dissolved concentrations of the trace elements within each
group were either greater than (>) or less than (<) corresponding water quality
criteria.
The trace elements belonging to each group are the following:
Group I Ag, Bi , Ga, Ge, Sn, Ti , and Zr at all stations
Group II As, B, Be, Li , Mo, and Se at all stations; Ba and Cr in the
east and west forks; and Zn in the mainstem near Forsyth
Group III Cu, Ni , and Pb at all stations; Zn in the east and west forks;
and Cr in the mainstem near Forsyth
Group IV Al , Ce, Co, and V at all stations; Fe in the east fork; and
Hg in the mainstem near Forsyth
Group V Hg and Mn in the east and west forks; Fe in the west fork and
in the mainstem near Forsyth; and Ba in the mainstem near
Forsyth
Group VI Mn in the mainstem near Forsyth
MISCELLANEOUS TRIBUTARIES AND SUNDAY CREEK
Several other small streams join the Yellowstone River between the Bighorn
and Powder rivers. Overall, the flows of these streams are smaller and are
expected to have only a minor influence on mainstem water quality. Because
these miscellaneous creeks are not directly affected by coal mining activities,
very little water quality information has been collected from them other than
that obtained from eight streams by the state WQB (Karp and Botz 1975, Karp et
al . 1975b, Montana DNRC 1974). Due to the scarcity of data, this information
172
was coordinated by combining streams into three groups as follows (USDI 1968):
1) small tributaries north of the Yellowstone River between Bighorn
and Miles City--Starve-to-Death, Great Porcupine, and Little
Porcupine creeks;
2) small tributaries south of the mainstem between Bighorn and
Miles City--Reservation, Smith, Sweeney, and Moon creeks; and
3) Sunday Creek near and northeast of Miles City.
A few of these streams have rather extensive drainage areas; Sunday Creek pro-
bably has the largest discharge. Data for Sunday Creek were adequate for a
flow-based classification of information, although this was not possible for
the other streams.
These miscellaneous tributaries and Sunday Creek have been designated B-D3
streams. As indicated in tables 75-78, the streams' pH ranges, temperature
characteristics, fecal coliform levels (except in Sunday Creek), and dissolved
oxygen concentrations were generally in accord with this classification. High
fecal counts were obtained from Sunday Creek, which frequently (in four of
seven samples) showed levels in violation of state criteria. The origin of
these fecal s is unknown, but they were probably derived from animal sources,
judging from the remoteness of Sunday Creek's drainage area.
Overall BOD5 concentrations were also high in Sunday Creek and in the
other northern tributaries. This was not true of creeks draining the more
southern regions of the Yellowstone Basin. The high BOD5 levels were probably
natural, considering the sparse human populations in the Bighorn-Miles City
area. Most of these streams are probably non-eutrophic with very low median
phosphorus concentrations and low nitrogen levels; however, occasionally high
values of these parameters were obtained in some samples. The only exception
was Sunday Creek, which tended towards eutrophy during low-flow periods.
The waters in Sunday and the Group I and II creeks (table 74) had a sodium
sulfate composition with bicarbonate as the secondary anion. Calcium concen-
trations significantly exceeded magnesium levels. This, coupled with the high
chloride concentrations in the northern tributaries (including Sunday Creek),
suggests different geologies in the northern and the southern drainages of
these streams. Sunday Creek is particularly noticeable in having high chloride
concentrations, which significantly exceeded the creek's Ca + Mg levels. This
is a unique feature among the streams inventoried so far in this report, and
suggests different rock formations in the northern portions of the Yellowstone
Basin. However, fluoride and potassium concentrations were again low in these
small tributaries and did not indicate water quality problems. Similarly, TR
trace element concentrations in the Group I and II streams (tables 75 and 76)
and in Sunday Creek (tables 77 and 78) were generally similar to those found
in Armells Creek. High concentrations of certain constituents were occasion-
ally obtained in excess of certain reference criteria (e.g., Co, Fe, Hg, Mn, V,
and Zn), but in general, median TR levels indicated low dissolved concentrations
and did not suggest difficulties in water use. Iron, which had significantly
high TR levels in some samples, may be the major exception. Data were insuf-
ficient to describe the status of mercury in this regard.
173
TABLE 75. Summary of the physical parameters measured in small tributaries to
the Yellowstone River between the Bighorn and Powder rivers.
Tributaries to
the ng
River
rth
Tn
butaries
to the
south
of the Yellowstone
in mg/1
of the
Yellowstone River^ in mq/
N
Min
Max
Med
N
Min
Max
Med
Flow
12
0.0
10E
0.5
9
0.17
1.47
0.79
Temp
11
0.0
17.7
13.0
9
0.0
19.5
9.2
PH
12
6.60
8.20
7.75
9
7.50
8.60
8.30
SC
19
1011
6290
2165
9
807
2200
1918
TDS
12
695
4100
1684
9
606
1778
1530
Turb
10
6
350
17
9
1
340
12
TSS
10
6.5
824
36.3
9
3.5
482
21.5
DO
6
9.8
12.0
10.5
9
8.4
12.9
10.7
BOD
6
3.1
8.2
4.2
9
1.1
10.1
2.6
FC
6
0
80
4
8
0
460
4
Ca
12
51
465
131
9
39
98
57
Mg
12
11
248
63
9
0.0
69
34
TH
12
174
1598
588
9
101
530
266
Na
12
45
800
328
9
116
431
278
K
4
11
25
15
0
--
--
--
SAR
12
0.9
8.8
5.8
9
3.8
11.7
7.7
HC03
12
18
451
249
9
218
608
458
TA
12
15
370
205
9
179
516
375
S04
12
410
2950
1067
9
205
745
648
CI
12
3.6
349
33
9
0.0
15
8.3
F
7
0.3
2.7
0.5
5
0.3
0.9
0.5
N
12
0.0
1.88
0.08
8
0.0
0.43
0.06
P
12
0.0
0.10
0.01
9
<.01
0.09
0.01
Two samples from Starve-to-Death Creek, five samples from Great Porcupine
Creek, and five samples from Little Porcupine Creek.
Three samples from Reservation Creek, two samples from Smith Creek, two
samples from Sweeney Creek, and two samples from Moon Creek.
TABLE 76. Summary of the total recoverable metals measured in small tributarie:
to the Yellowstone River between the Bighorn and Powder rivers.
N
Min
Max
Med
As
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
B
4
.15
1.4
.34
Be
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
Cd
14
<.001
<.01
0.001
Co
2
.05
.07
.06
Cr
2
.03
.04
.035
Cu
14
<.01
0.02
<.01
Fe
14
.16
6.5
.52
Hg
13
<.001
0.002
<.001
Li
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
Mn
11
<.01
0.50
0.06
Pb
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
Se
2
<.001
<.001
<.001
V
2
.46
.63
.55
Zn
14
<.01
0.04
0.01
174
Summary of the physical parameters measured in Sunday Creek near
Miles City.
Flow
less
than 9
cfs.
Flow
greater
than 9
cfs.
N
Min
Max
Med
N
Min
Max
Med
Flow
6
0.0
8.7
2.04
5
10E
198
50E
Temp
6
0.5
30.1
9.1
5
5.0
23.5
13.5
pH
6
7.13
8.89
8.00
5
7.50
8.62
8.30
SC
6
623
2550
1148
5
345
3274
1610
TDS
6
427
1948
826
5
422
2021
1103
Turb
5
4
250
35
5
10
3000
210
TSS
6
10.0
358
52.3
5
7.0
5650
1004
DO
6
8.1
12.2
11.1
3
8.9
11.0
10.3
BOD
5
1.4
>11
5.4
3
4.2
6.9
4.3
FC
4
0
7000
213
3
0
1030
600
Ca
6
13
64
25
5
15
81
48
Mg
6
4.6
28
8.2
5
1.2
31
17
TH
6
52
269
94
5
43
331
191
Na
6
105
485
220
5
80
563
265
K
3
5.8
6.8
6.5
4
8.1
65
9.1
SAR
6
5.6
13.4
9.9
5
3.9
13.5
8.2
HC03
6
130
616
224
5
145
290
219
TA
6
106
505
197
5
119
242
180
so4
CI
6
103
745
243
5
112
570
332
6
0.6
374
60
5
10
556
118
F
4
0.2
0.5
0.4
4
0.2
1.4
0.4
N
6
0.0
4.5
0.40
5
0.02
0.69
0.11
P
6
0.01
0.59
0.15
5
0.01
0.12
0.01
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1
Summary of the total recoverable metals measured in Sunday Creek near
Miles City.
N
Min
Max
Med
As
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
B
6
<.10
0.17
0.11
Cd
9
<.001
0.001
<.001
Cr
1
--
--
<.01
Cu
9
<.01
0.08
0.01
Fe
9
.25
18
1.1
Hg
3
<.0002
<.001
<.001
Mn
9
<.01
1.06
0.04
Pb
2
<.01
<.05
<.05
Sr
1
—
--
.58
V
1
--
--
<.10
Zn
9
<.01
0.20
<.01
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1
175
Levels of TSS and turbidity in the Group I and II streams were generally
similar to those in Armells and Sarpy creeks. Occasionally high sediment con-
centrations were obtained, probably in association with high flows, but low
median values. The median TSS concentrations in these streams indicate an
excellent-to-good fishery (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission 1965)
ignoring the probable effects of high TDS concentrations and low flows. Thus,
in these streams, salinity seems to be the major factor degrading water quality
In Sunday Creek, TSS-turbidity levels were significantly higher, parti-
cularly at high flows, and noticeably high values were obtained at times--as
high as 5.7 mg/1. Considering the low TDS concentrations of the stream, TSS-
turbidity may be a major detraction from stream quality, potentially affecting
the stream's fishery, if there is one, and lowering the value of the water as
a public supply. Salinity also degrades Sunday Creek's water quality.
Although high TDS-specific conductance levels were occasionally obtained
in samples from these small tributaries, the overall salinities in these Group
I and II streams were significantly less than those in the Armells Creek drain-
age and generally similar to those in Sarpy Creek near its mouth. The streams
with drainages to the south of the Yellowstone River were less saline than
those to the north, except Sunday Creek which had the lowest salinity of any
small stream in the Bighorn-Miles City portion of the Yellowstone Basin. The
masking of the TDS-flow relationship was also evident in Sunday Creek, where
TDS and flow, like TSS and flow, appeared to be directly related. Regardless
of the lower TDS concentrations, salinities were still at adequate levels in
these various streams to potentially influence the aquatic biota and restrict
many of the water uses. Effects on aquatic life would be most noticeable in
the Group I and II creeks, as median TDS and specific conductance levels were
greater than 1350 mg/1 and 2000 ymhos/cm, respectively. Such effects would be
lower in Sunday Creek, but TDS and SC levels may still have some detrimental
effects with levels at 670 mg/1 and 1000 ymhos/cm.
Using TDS as a measure of quality, the waters in these streams would pro-
bably be good for application to all stock animals (Seghetti 1951), particular'
in Sunday Creek where median sulfate concentrations were low. Sulfate levels
in the other tributaries, primarily in the Group I streams (tables 75 and 76),
however, could degrade the value of the stream for this use because median sul'
fate concentrations either exceeded the limiting levels for stock (in the nor-
thern tributaries) or exceeded the animals' threshold levels (in the southern
tributaries) (tables 10-14).
These eight streams would be poor sources of surface water for public
supply due to their hardnesses (Bean 1962) and high TDS and sulfate levels.
In Sunday Creek (tables 77 and 78), this would account for the occasionally
high turbidity, fecal coliform, and chloride concentrations. Boron would not
affect the use of the water for municipal supply or irrigation, but the Group
I and II tributaries would probably still have a poor quality, borderline
Class I - 1 1 water for irrigation as a result of their high sodium and SAR value:
(producing a medium sodium hazard), high sulfate concentrations, and high TDS-
SC levels (producing a high salinity hazard) (tables 15 and 16). With the
generally lower TDS and sulfate concentrations, Sunday Creek would probably ha1
a better Class II water for irrigation. It would not have a Class I water for
this use because of its high sodium concentrations and SAR values and its
176
tendency to have high chloride levels. In general, these streams have a poor-
to-fair water quality.
ROSEBUD CREEK DRAINAGE
Rosebud Creek Mainstem
Rosebud Creek is a large tributary in eastern Montana that joins the
Yellowstone River between Forsyth and Miles City (USDI 1968). Its flow is
significantly smaller than that of the Bighorn River, but it has a larger dis-
charge than many streams east of Myers. Rosebud Creek does not have a sub-
stantial effect on mainstem quality judging from the fact that there is no real
change in Yellowstone water chemistry between Forsyth and Miles City (tables 56
and 57).
Due to the higher flows, Rosebud Creek is a more suitable source of water
for uses such as irrigation than the smaller Bighorn-Miles City streams. As
a portion of the Rosebud drainage lies very close to the Colstrip strip mining
development, particularly the Peabody mine, an extensive water quality sampling
program was recently initiated by the USGS on the creek (USDI 1976). The USGS
maintains four sampling stations on the stream (table 3); to expand the data
base and to facilitate this review, water quality information from these sta-
tions was combined to represent two reaches of the creek — a middle reach in
close association with Colstrip, and a lower reach near the stream's mouth near
Rosebud. Data available from the state WQB for Rosebud Creek (Karp and Botz
1975, Montana DNRC 1974) were combined with the USGS information, and these
data were sufficient for a seasonal classification. In addition, some data
are also available from the state WQB for an upper reach of the creek near its
headwaters in the Rosebud Mountains, upstream from Busby. The data for this
upper segment were flow-classified, as shown in tables 79 and 80.
The water quality in upper Rosebud Creek was good compared to other tri-
butaries in the Bighorn-Powder rivers portion of the Yellowstone Basin. Dis-
solved concentrations were much lower, and TDS levels were similar to those
obtained from the Bighorn and Tongue rivers (table 48). However, TDS concen-
trations in this segment were about 20 percent to 110 percent higher than those
in the Yellowstone River near Forsyth, depending upon season, and they were
found to be a magnitudes sufficient to degrade this reach as a surface water
public supply (i.e, median TDS values were greater than the standards for this
parameter and water use as summarized in table 9). According to the EPA (1976),
waters with TDS concentrations between 500 mg/1 and 1000 mg/1 can have detri-
mental effects on sensitive crops. The stream's salinity also could have a
mild effect on the aquatic biota in this segment—median values were between
400 mg/1 and 670 mg/1.
In contrast, the upstream waters were excellent for the watering of all
stock animals, and this reach for the most part probably has a good Class I
water for irrigation, as it has low boron, SAR, chloride, sulfate, and SC-TDS
levels. The stream had a low sodium hazard and a medium-high salinity hazard
for irrigation (USDA 1954).
177
TABLE 79. Summary of the physical parameters measured in the upper reach of
Rosebud Creek near Kirby-Busby.
Less than
23 cfs
Greater than 23
cfs.
N
Min
Max
Med
N
Min
Max
Med
Flow
5
5.7
22.7
11.2
2
63.8
75.6
69.7
Temp
5
0.0
18.0
0.0
2
0.0
11.8
5.9
PH
5
8.00
8.40
8.30
2
7.60
8.30
7.95
SC
5
760
997
785
2
485
805
645
TDS
5
613
851
672
2
363
705
534
Turb
4
2
10
8
2
2
78
40
TSS
4
9
28
15
2
25.9
254
140
DO
5
7.9
12.9
11.3
2
9.8
11.6
10.7
BOD
5
1.7
4.3
3.2
2
3.0
--
(11.4?)
FC
5
2
7700
41
2
30
480
255
Ca
5
58
88
72
2
47
66
57
Mg
5
41
73
57
2
19
60
40
TH
5
381
473
403
2
197
412
305
Na
K
SAR
5
0
5
11
46
23
2
0
2
18
28
23
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
HCO.
TA J
5
367
472
431
2
213
429
321
5
315
387
357
2
175
352
264
so4
5
85
189
118
2
61
118
90
CI
5
0.3
1.6
1.5
2
2.5
3.1
2.8
F
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
--
--
0.2
N
5
0.01
0.21
0.05
2
0.03
0.25
0.14
P
5
0.01
0.07
0.02
2
0.03
0.17
0.10
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1
TABLE 80. Summary of total recoverable metals measured in the upper reach of
Rosebud Creek near Kirby-Busby.
N
Min
Max
Med
As
5
<.01
0.01
<.01
B
1
--
--
.07
Be
1
--
--
<.01
Cd
7
<.001
<.01
<.01
Co
1
—
—
.01
Cr
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
Cu
7
<.01
0.01
<.01
Hg
4
<.001
<.001
<.001
Fe
7
.08
3.2
.44
Mn
2
.08
.21
.15
Pb
5
<.01
<.01
<.01
Se
1
--
--
<.001
V
1
--
—
.09
Zn
6
<.01
0.01
0.01
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1; Li: <.01, N=l .
178
None of the major ionic constituents had concentrations high enough to
degrade any water uses. Trace elements, also, showed low concentrations (tables
79 and 80), except the high TR iron and manganese concentrations. The high TR
iron and manganese concentrations could affect the aquatic biota (table 19),
and, in combination with the hardness of the water, could detract from the
domestic use of the upper stream.
The chemical composition of upper Rosebud Creek was somewhat different
from other streams in the Bighorn-Miles City segment of the Yellowstone drain-
age (USDI 1968). The waters were calcium bicarbonate, indicating limestone
formations in the Rosebud Mountains, and magnesium and sulfate were secondary
ions. Calcium concentrations were significantly higher than magnesium concen-
trations. Chloride and fluoride were insignificant constituents, and sodium
concentrations were also low. Such low sodium concentrations produced parti-
cularly low SAR values considering the extremely hard nature of the water.
However, several downstream changes in the chemical composition of Rosebud
Creek made the lower segment more consistent with other Bighorn-Miles City tri-
butaries. Apparently, intermediate inputs to Rosebud Creek, geographically on
line with the upper Armells, Sarpy, and Tullock creek drainages, have similar
water quality. Fluoride, chloride, and potassium continued to be insignificant
constituents, but the waters in Rosebud Creek tended to become more sodium sul-
fate in character downstream, with higher SAR values and with such great in-
creases in magnesium that magnesium levels exceeded calcium concentrations in
the lower segments (tables 82 and 83). This trend towards a sodium sulfate
water became most noticeable in the extreme lower reach of Rosebud Creek near
its mouth, as indicated in table 81.
TABLE 81. Low-flow and high-flow levels of (Ca + Mg):NA, Ca:Mg, and HC03:S04
in Rosebud Creek.
(Ca + Mg):Na
Ca
:Mg
HC03
so4
Low High
Flows Flows
Low
Flows
High
Flows
Low
Flows
High
Flows
Upper Rosebud
Middle Rosebud
Lower Rosebud
5.61 4.22
2.41 2.89
1 . 80 1.74
1.26
0.87
0.81
1.42
0.96
0.87
3.65
1.61
1.30
3.57
1.82
1.48
Such downstream changes were less noticeable during the high-flow period when
runoff from the Rosebud Mountains would be greatest.
Rosebud Creek has been classified a B-D3 stream by the State of Montana
(Montana DHES, undated). This designation is appropriate for the high maximum
warm-weather temperatures of this stream in its lower reaches, and its pH and
dissolved oxygen levels in all segments. The lower pH values were most con-
sistently obtained in the winter rather than during the May-July runoff period.
In the upper reach, however, lowest values were obtained in conjunction with
the higher flows. As observed on almost all of the streams in the Yellowstone
Basin, DO concentrations were highest during the cold-weather periods and lowest
during the summer in association with the high water temperatures. Occasionally,
179
^
^^
c-
un
0
CO
in
CO
T3
O
0
CO
LT>
<£> •
^r
0
0 •
0
un
ro
0
O
in
<U
CT>
0
0
■ CM
0
CO
O
ro
E
0
DO
O
0
CM
CO* —
po
0
0
CNJ
0
>. X
00
0
m
O
on
O
0
*r
CM
0
in
>— *D
*r
cn
CO
O
On
CO
CO
PO
3 SI
CO
CO
On
CO
CO
cn
CO
0
0
0
-3
>,
<o
2: c
0
^D
m
0
ro
Cn
<o
CNJ
0
O
0
0
0
CNJ
v£>
vO
CO
*3"
On
2:
CN,
Cn
CO
CO
en
in
ro
T
<£>
ro
ro
^r
«3-
CM
O
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
0
0
0
0
0
in
TD
CO
CO
in
<*T
0
LO
*3"
0
in
0
oj
■3-
O
O
0
<o
^0
o~>
CO
Ol
e:
in
O
CO
r"
CO
KO
CM
"~
ro
CM
CO
CO
LO
UO
cn
1-1
■*
ro
CO
■*
0
0
0
in
CD
0
O
CO
CO
0
en
0
O
0
O
O
O
0
CD
CTt
On
O
CO
CM
<^>
Q.S
CO
«=r
<3"
vO
*d-
CD
CD
0
<
in
0
in
0
CO
>x>
O
co
O
0
en
CO
cn
ro
0
2: E
CNJ
0
CO
cn
O
CM
CM
CM
CO
O
CM
0
O
0
^
cn
CO
-0
0
0
en
O
in
CNI
0
CD
0
0
O
on
0
SI
ro
0
00'
»—
CO
f—
CM
•—
O
CM
CO
Cn
nO
Is*
*—
•—
lT)
»!*■
ro
<o
0
O
0
>>
S-
UJ
0
CD
CO
^
^_
3 X
0
in
O
"3-
O
O
vO
"X>
O
in
s- ra
0
CO
CD
0
vO
O
0
ro
CO
C3
ro
XI ST
CO
ro
cn
UD
0
CD
0
aj
s_
tu c
0
en
0
0
KO
CO
<s-
en
O
0
ro
O
0
JD -f-
00
en
CO
<^
CO
O
E 21
0
in
LO
CO
0
cr>
0
CD
O
0
CJ
>
0
^
CT.
0
0
CD
en
cn
0
0
Cn
cn
CT>
on
r^
on
on
on
on
on
CO
en
cn
z
CD
0
■c
10
O
CO
O
in
0
O
0)
0
00
0
0
nO
O
ID
s:
ro
r_
CO
■""
r"~
C\J
1
CO
"~
1
<~D
cr.
IT)
ud
"~
*~
«=r
CO
CM
in
0
0
O
t.
a)
0,
JD X
CO
c'
KO
O
O
0
0 «
O
0
O
CO
vTJ
O
CM
■4-> 2:
CO
CO
CO
CO
cn
CO
*d-
10
CD
0
O
0
0
4_)
CO
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
•JD
012I
CO
en
lO
\o
CO
ro
*3-
0
0
0
Z3
<t
=
cr\
Cn
Cn
en
a.
On
0
On
CO
CO
<T>
cn
cn
cn
0.
On
on
a^
cn
cr,
en
01
cn
3
-Q
ro
0
0
cc
O
DZ
0
Q
3
O
0
0
on
<C
O
<c
O
u'
t—
a.
UO
>_
l"
^~
Q
ca
u-
O
^
h"
*z
:*:
t/i
:c
1—
ut
C_)
u-
2:
Q_
180
ID
0
cn
0
-o
Ol
ro
in
0
00
0
0
ro
in
10
0
in
O
00
0
*r
CO
0
Ol
en
0
in
a
CO
CO
O
co
CO
CO
O
ro
O
CO
lO
in
CO
CO
*T
ro
*T
0
0
0 —
CO
10
O
O
in
CM
0
0
00
in
ro
VD
m
O
CO
in
in
O
0
in
ro
CO
ai
O
3 s:
CT*
<\J
00
cn
in
00
in
*T
CO
uo
0
0
0
*P
jj
0
CO
ro
z; c
CO
0
CO
en
CO
0
O
0
0
O
CO
0
0
CTl
0
00
CO
0
CM
CO
0
CO
in
CO
cn
ro
in
0
CM
in
in
ro
0
0
0
00
CO
*3-
CO
-o
0
ro
ro
0
«3"
0
CO
00
00
in
0
<u
O
0
<T-
CM
10
0
e:
ro
CO
'~
en
r"
l—
'""
ro
in
in
CO
in
cn
CO
■""
*r
CO
ro
"*
0
0
0
_
CM
0
0
0
O
in
CM
0
0
en
0
0
0
0
in
0
ro
O
l- 03
ID
CM
0
«3-
*T
o-s:
OJ
■""
CO
■""
•""
CM
CM
"~
**"
■""
00
■""
in
■""
•""
CM
in
0
•~
O
0
JZ
ID
0
lO
0
00
0
cn
CO
ro
cn
10
O
0
O
CM
ro
in
0
CM
E s:
ro
O
in
CM
en
0
0
0
ro
m
0
ro
m
0
O
0
ro
zz
^^
ID
Cn
0
ID
~o
ro
0
0
in
CO
ID
uo
0
ID
O
O
CD
10
«3-
CO
ID
en
0
CO
CO
SI
ro
O
CO
'—
cn
CM
in
-—
1
-—
CO
cn
in
cn
•—
-—
^"
*3-
CO
10
O
O
O
>,
T3
0
0
0
r—
O
3 X
0
10
O
0
0
0
0
0
O
in
0
^r
00
0
CM
O
0
«3-
^r
cn
^ 2:
CO
ro
ID
■X
O
O
0
cu
U-
S-
0
ro
,_
CM
O
-3-
en
0
CXi
*r
CO
O
O
jd .,-
CO
CM
in
en
in
CO
0
«3-
en
CO
^r
*d-
CO
O
O
O
01
O
Z
cn
CM
en
cn
CO
CO
en
00
CO
CO
CO
r^
00
CO
co
CO
90
r^
CO
DO
7Z.
CM
0
0
O
lO
CO
-O
0
00
0
ID
0
O
CU
CM
en
O
in
0
ID
CO
E
ro
""
CO
^~
CO
in
CO
CM
'
■"*
cn
in
cn
■~
■""
"»
CO
CO
lO
O
CD
O
s_
Ol
in
0
CO
.D. X
O
CO
CO
•3-
CO
cn
O
CO
O <D
CM
uo
ro
O
in
0
O
cn
■w £!
UO
CM
CO
•—
■—
CO
en
•—
ro
•
<—
•—
in
«—
*—
CM
in
*T
*T
CC
O
0
d
O
*J
0
,_
,_
O
ro
0
0
CM
0
CO
ID
in
O
0
0
3 -i-
0
cn
cn
CO
CM
01s:
<3"
U3
CO
in
*3-
ID
30
ro
CO
«3"
O
0
0
3
<
ro
CM
ro
ro
ro
CM
0
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
CO
^
CO
ro
ro
CM
ro
O
3
C-
£>
0
E
UO
0
cn
O
Ol
•JZ
O
0
UO
0
0
O
cn
31
<o
<
i_J
«r
0
u-
l_
0.
UO
h"
t—
(—
0
CO
U_
l_)
•SL
""
Z
^
UO
=
UO
U
""
=:
a.
181
unexpectedly low DO concentrations were obtained, but these instances appeared
to be correlated with extremely high TSS concentrations and high settleable
solids contents (e.g., the May-July data in table 83) rather than with organic
discharges. In general, median BODc levels did not indicate organic pollution,
and only 16 percent of the samples had BOD5 levels greater than 3.9 mg/1 . Thes
occasionally high BOD5 values, approaching 10 mg/1, were probably natural (as
in Beauvais Creek) rather than the result of man's activities. DO percentage-
of-saturation data indicated no extensive organic inputs to Rosebud Creek; on!)
17.5 percent of the samples had DO concentrations less than 85 percent saturati
and less than 10 percent had DO levels less than 80 percent saturation. In
addition, median DO concentrations in Rosebud Creek were greater than 90 per-
cent of saturation (table 84). Thus, temperature, pH, BODc, and DO levels in
Rosebud Creek do not seem to detract from the quality of its water. Although
fecal col i form concentrations were high in some samples from Rosebud Creek,
median values were generally in line with the state's average criteria (except
the upper station at high flows), and only 8 percent of the samples had fecals
in excess of the state standard for grab samples (all from the upper reach).
As a result of these features, and because Rosebud Creek is non-eutrophic and
N-limited, the high total solids concentrations, particularly in the lower seg-
ments, appear to be the major water quality problems in the stream.
Dissolved solids concentrations in Rosebud Creek tended to increase down-
stream to its mouth, probably due to its extensive prairie drainage system
below Busby. An increase in median TDS of 31.6 percent occurred during high
flows between the upper segment above Busby and the middle reach near Col strip,
with a 16.4 percent to 33.7 percent increase during the low-flow periods. An
increase of about 57.3 percent at high flows and between 32.6 percent and 40.8
percent at low flows developed through the entire length of the stream to its
lower reach near Rosebud. These TDS increases were caused primarily by in-
creasing Mg, Na, and SO4 concentrations; increases in Ca and HCOo were small,
and K, CI, and F continued to be insignificant constituents in the lower strean
Suspended solids also tended to increase downstream, mostly near the creek's
mouth at low flows (table 83).
All of these features indicate a downstream degradation in water quality
and additional restrictions on water use. For example, although TSS concentra-
tions were high at high flows in the upper segment above Busby (tables 79 and
80), the overall median TSS level in this segment (22 mg/1) indicated an excel-
lent fishery (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission 1965). In the lowt
reach, however, an annual median TSS concentration of 142 mg/1 indicates only
a fair fishery (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission 1965). In turn,
the greater downstream salinities with TDS generally in excess of 670 mg/1 are
another source of degradation to the Rosebud fishery. That is, TDS and SC
levels in the middle and lower reaches of Rosebud Creek were at levels suffi-
cient to suggest adverse effects on the aquatic biota, although these effects
would be small with TDS and SC less than 1350 mg/1 and 2000 umhos/cm.
The water in lower Rosebud Creek was of lesser quality for municipal suppl
than that upstream as a result of the high TDS and sulfate concentrations and
the high turbidities. For example, the annual median turbidity of the lower
reach of Rosebud Creek (84 JTU) was much greater than that upstream (about 8
JTU) and greater than the permissible criteria for surface water public sup-
plies established by the NTAC (1968). Also, the waters in the lower reaches
182
TABLE 84
laneous cons ti tui
lie reach
rip
N
meous
constituents and
dissolved metals
Hin Max Med
Total
N
Min Ma>
Min Max Med
N
Med
D0C
50
53 118
47
67 113 95
NH.-N
21
0.0 0.11 0.02
21
0.0 0.09
Si
45
7.1 22 16
46
7.5 21
Al
4
0.0 .01 .01
13
.20 8.8 .57
4
0.0 .01 .005
As
6
.001 .028 .003
25
0.0 .018 .002
5
0.0 .003 .002
25 0.0
B
46
.10 .24 .16
2
.13 .22 .18
46
.09 .23 .18
Ba
3
.080 .110 .100
3
.070 .042 .092
Be
4
o.o o.oi <.oi
15
0.0 .01 0.0
4
0.0 0.01
Cd
28
0.0 0.02
Co
2
.01 .02 .015
.03
.01
Cr
4
0.0 <.01 <.01
23
0.0 .02 0.0
4
0.0 0.01 -.01
.04
.01
Cu
4
0.0 .003 .002
29
0.0 .13 .01
4
0.0 .002 .001
0.06
0.01
Fe
46
0.0 .21 .03
28
.31 16 .80
46
0.0 .16 .02
34 .34
32
2.5
Hg
24
0.0 .001 .0001
29 0.0
.0012
.0002
Li
4
.050 .055 .052
10
0.06 0.05
4
.040 .056 .052
0.06
0.05
Mn
4
.010 .020 .014
25
.02 .60 .06
4
0.0 .03 .03
31 .04
.57
.11
Mo
4
<.003 0.003 0.003
9
.002 .21 .002
4
0.003 <.003
5 .002
Ni
4
.001 .007 .001
5
<.05 0.05
4
0.0 .003 .002
10 0.0
Pb
4
0.0 .002 .001
25
<.01 0.10
4
0.0 .003 .001
0.10
Se
2
0.0 .001 .001
23
0.0 .002 .001
1
.001
26 0.0
0.001
Sr
3
1.1 1.9 1.9
4
1.1 1.7 1.3
3 .54
2.6
1.3
V
4
■^.003 <.004 0.003
2
.03 .13 .08 "
4
<.0O4 -.004
0.13
.10
Zn
4
0.0 0.03 <.01
20
0.08 0.02
4
0.0 .02 .01
0.33
0.02
NOTE: Measurements expressed in mg/1.
aAg: < .001 , N=3; Bi: <0.10, N=l; Cd, Co: II, N . Hg: .0001, N=4; Ga, Ge, Sn,
bAg: <.002, N=4; Cd: 0.0, N'4 ; Co: -.02, N=3; Hg: .0001, N=4; Bi . Ga , Ge, Sn, Ti
DO expressed as percentage of saturation.
.02, N=l.
183
appeared to be of lesser quality for irrigation than above Busby, due primarily
to the higher TDS-SC levels and salinities--the downstream increases in boron,
fluoride, SAR, chloride, and sulfate would not alter the creek's classification
Rosebud Creek becomes a Class II water for irrigation near Col strip, with a
low sodium hazard but with a high salinity hazard, which would restrict its
application to certain plant species. However, the downstream water quality
would still be good for watering all stock animals (Seghetti 1951).
Discharge in lower Rosebud Creek was highest during the May- July period,
probably caused by snowmelt runoff from its mountainous headwaters, and lowest
in the August-to-October winter season. TDS concentrations were lowest during
the runoff period (although the higher TSS levels in May-July detract from the
better water quality), and highest in the winter. The creek had a secondary
flow peak in the spring, probably caused by early runoff from the prairie low-
lands. TSS levels were intermediate during this secondary flow peak, and TDS
concentrations were high during this March-April period regardless of the great
er flows. This probably stems from the poor water quality associated with low-
land runoff in various small prairie streams. As a result, the usual inverse
relationship between flow and TDS was not as apparent in Rosebud Creek, and the
seasonal changes in median TDS concentrations between low and high flows were
not as great as those in the Yellowstone River. These effects can be seen in
table 85, which gives Yellowstone River data comparing stations above Livingsto
with largely mountainous drainages to those below Billings that are cumulative!,
affected by prairie inputs.
TABLE 85. Seasonal changes in median TDS concentrations between low and high flows in the Yellowstone Rive
High Flow: High Flow TDS: Spring Flow3: Spring Flow TDSa:
Low Flow Low Flow TDS Low Flow Low Flow TDS
Yel lowstone-Corwin Sprir
igs
7.84
0.46
1.05
0.98
Yel lowstone-Livingston
5.96
0.50
1.07
0.98
Yellowstone Billings
5.42
0.48
1.11
0.94
Yellowstone-Miles City
3.50
0.54
1.22
1.05
Yel lowstone-Sidney
3.21
0.57
1.36
1.05
Rosebud-Rosebud
3.51
0.94
2.25
1.06
March-Apri'
As indicated in table 85, both the seasonal flow and TDS variations declined
downstream in the Yellowstone River, showing a direct relationship between sprii
flow and TDS in the lower reach.
Phosphorus concentrations were high throughout Rosebud Creek (tables 79, 81
82, and 83); this was particularly noticeable in association with the high TSS
levels during the high flows. Phosphorus concentrations were usually greater
than the reference level for eutrophication during all seasons; 62 percent of
184
the samples had concentrations greater than or equal to 0.05 mg P/l. However,
the creek is probably non-eutrophic judging by the low median nitrogen concen-
trations; 93 percent of the samples were generally below the reference criteria.
Therefore, only 4.5 percent of the samples from Rosebud Creek would be expected
to have both phosphorus and nitrogen in excess of their criteria for eutrophi-
cation. Ammonia-nitrogen concentrations were also low (table 84), and probably
would not be toxic to the stream's biota or alter the eutrophic status of the
creek. The high inorganic nitrogen and ammonia concentrations occasionally
observed in other streams and attributed to strip mining activities were not
evident in Rosebud Creek. The stream did, however, demonstrate a summer low
in nitrogen, and it had a major winter peak in concentrations and a secondary
runoff peak in the middle reach (table 82). The winter maximum in nitrogen was
not evident in the lower segment.
Many other trace elements were analyzed in samples from the lower two
reaches of Rosebud Creek (table 84). To facilitate their review, these consti-
tuents were split into the following groups:
Group I Ag, Bi , Ga, Ge, Sn, Ti , and Zr in both reaches
Group II B, Ba, Be, Co, Cr, Li , and Se in both reaches; Ni and Zn
in the middle reach; and Mo in the lower reach
Group III Cd, Cu, Pb, and V in both reaches; possibly As (one high
dissolved reading was obtained) and Mo in the middle
reach; and As, Ni, and Zn in the lower reach
Group IV Al , Fe, Hg, and Mn in both reaches
In general, trace element concentrations in Rosebud Creek seemed lower than
those in Armells Creek (table 84). Practically none of these minor constituents
were at concentrations high enough to indicate major water quality problems.
This would include silica, strontium, and metals such as Al , Fe, and Mn that
were observed in high concentrations in their TR forms. Such high TR concen-
trations were probably correlated with the high TSS levels of Rosebud Creek,
as the TR concentrations of several metals (particularly Al , Fe, and Mn) in-
creased downstream in association with the downstream increase in suspended
sediment. Dissolved concentrations, however, did not increase to the creek's
mouth. Of the trace elements, only iron may cause water quality problems.
Tributary Streams
The state WQB collected samples from four tributaries in the region
(tables 86 and 87). All of these streams are located in the southern portions
of the Rosebud Creek drainage above Col strip; the most southern streams had
chemical compositions similar to the composition of upper Rosebud Creek above
Busby (e.g., the minimum data in tables 86 and 87--Indian Creek). These streams
had low TDS-SC levels and a calcium bicarbonate water in which calcium was higher
than magnesium, calcium and sulfate were the secondary ions, and sodium concen-
trations were high, producing higher SAR values. With the exception of TSS,
which was in low concentrations, the median quality of the seven samples col-
lected from these streams was most similar to those in the middle and lower
185
TABLE 86. Summary of the physical parameters measured in the Rosebud Creek tri
taries near Kirby, Busby, and Lame Deer.
N
Min
Max
Med
Flow
7
2.0
5E
2.9
Temp
7
0.0
16.3
4.5
PH
7
8.20
8.60
8.30
SC
7
577
1685
1181
TDS
7
485
1477
1034
Turb
7
2
23
7
TSS
7
6
69
21.0
DO
7
9.5
13.5
11.8
BOD
7
1.5
7.5
3.2
FC
7
0
550
12
Ca
7
54
74
65
Mg
7
37
129
86
TH
7
302
696
530
Na
7
11
150
83
K
0
--
—
—
SAR
7
0.3
2.5
1.6
HC03
7
328
652
534
TA
7
269
551
438
S04
7
47
462
212
CI
7
0.2
8.8
3.8
F
1
—
--
1.0
N
7
0.0
0.66
0.03
P
7
<.01
0.29
0.04
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1 .
One sample was taken from Indian Creek near Kirby, two samples were
taken from Davis Creek near Busby, three samples were taken from Lame Deer Cree
near Lame Deer, and one sample was taken from Muddy Creek near Lame Deer.
186
TABLE 87. Summary of the total recoverable metals measured in the Rosebud
Creek tributaries near Kirby, Busby, and Lame Deer.a
Total Recovera
ble Metal
s
N
Min
Max
Med
As
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
Cd
7
<.001
<.01
<.01
Cr
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
Cu
7
7
0.01
<.01
Fe
7
<.01
1.10
0.25
Hg
5
<.001
<.001
<.001
Mn
6
0.02
0.20
0.05
Pb
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
In
7
<.01
0.02
<.01
NOTE: Measurements expressed in mg/1 .
One sample was taken in Indian Creek near Kirby, two samples were taken
from Davis Creek near Busby, three samples were taken from Lame Deer Creek near
Lame Deer, and one sample was taken from Muddy Creek near Lame Deer.
reaches of Rosebud Creek. The tributary waters were non-eutrophic and nitrogen-
limited with pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, fecal col i form, BODc, and trace
element levels in accord with state criteria for B-D3 streams. Salinity and
high concentrations of related constituents appeared to be the primary factors
detracting from the water quality in these tributaries.
Median TDS-SC levels in these small streams were generally greater than
those in Rosebud Creek; e.g., the tributaries had 1.09 to 1.23 times higher
median TDS concentrations than the lower reach of Rosebud Creek (table 83),
depending upon season. These differences were greater in an upstream direction
(tables 79 and 80)--differences of 1.54 to 1.94 times higher were observed
above Busy—correlating with the downstream increase in the mainstem below
Busby. As a result, the same potential effects of salinity and other ions in
Rosebud Creek would apply more strongly to these tributary streams. For example,
although the water in the tributaries would still be good for stock on the basis
of TDS (Seghetti 1951), the median bicarbonate concentration was high enough to
further degrade its value for this use; median bicarbonate was greater than 500
mg/l--higher than the limiting level of this parameter for domestic animals
(California WQCB 1963). The tributary waters would also be unfit for municipal
supply due to the high TDS concentrations and hardness levels; however, lower
sulfate concentrations were generally obtained from the smaller streams than
in Rosebud Creek.
The tributaries provide a less suitable source of water (Class II) for
irrigation; they have low sodium hazard (low SAR values) but high salinity
hazard for this use. The greater salinities in some of the Rosebud tributaries
may also have a slightly greater effect on the aquatic biota than does the main-
stem, but the effect would be mild because TDS concentrations were generally
less than 1350 mg/1. In turn, the effects of TSS on aquatic life would be
minute in the Rosebud tributaries in comparison to the TSS influences pre-
dicted for the lower reaches of Rosebud Creek.
187
TONGUE RIVER DRAINAGE
Tongue River Mainstem
The Tongue River is one of seven major tributaries joining the Yellowstone
River in Montana, and one of three major tributaries entering the mainstem east
of Billings. The Tongue River's flow is only about 11 percent of the Bighorn's
but its discharge is about seven times greater than Rosebud Creek's. The Tongu
at its mouth at Miles City has an annual average flow of about four percent of
that of the Yellowstone at Miles City above their confluence (USDI 1974). Thus
the Tongue River may exert some influence on the water quality in the Yellow-
stone mainstem, assuming that it has a significantly lower quality than the
bigger stream. This may also apply to the Powder River, located about 39 miles
farther east near Terry. The annual average flow of the Tongue and Powder
rivers is about 9.5 percent of that of the Yellowstone River at Miles City.
The potential cumulative effects of the Tongue and Powder rivers on mainstem
quality can be judged by comparing Yellowstone data obtained at Miles City
(above the Tongue confluence, table 57) to the Yellowstone data obtained from
sampling stations below Terry.
Two long-term water quality monitoring stations have been maintained by
the USGS on the Tongue River (USDI 1966-1974a)--at the state line near Decker
(an extreme upstream station where the river enters Montana above the Tongue
River Reservoir), and at Miles City (an extreme downstream station near the
stream's mouth). About 30 to 50 samples from these two locations have been
analyzed each seasonal period for many of the water quality parameters, and the
data from these two stations are directly comparable due to their similar per-
iods of collection. In addition, the USGS has recently begun sampling three
intermediate water quality stations on the Tongue River as summarized in table
3; about four to fourteen samples have been collected from these locations each
seasonal period. Data from these intermediate locations are directly compar-
able to each other due to their similar sampling periods, but they are not as
amenable for comparison with the long-term stations which have been sampled
over a longer time span.
For this review, data from two adjacent and intermediate USGS stations
were combined (Tongue River below Hanging Woman Creek near Birney and Tongue
River at Tongue River dam near Decker) to represent a segment of the river
immediately below the Tongue River Reservoir. In addition, considerable amount
of data are also available from the state WQB on the Tongue River and its tri-
butaries. The USGS and the state WQB data were further combined to ultimately
represent four reaches of the Tongue River as follows (USDI 1976):
1) near Decker above the reservoir (from near the state line to
the inflow of the reservoir);
2) near Birney (from the Tongue River dam outflow to near Birney);
3) from near Ashland to the Brandenburg bridge; and
4) from Brandenburg bridge to near the river's mouth.
Of special interest in the water quality inventory of this drainage is the
Tongue River Reservoir and its potential effect on mainstem quality; it is
188
discussed later in this section.
The statistical summary of water quality data from the upper reach of the
Tongue River is presented in table 88. The flow pattern in this reach is sim-
ilar to the patterns in other streams located near their mountainous head-
waters regions (e.g., the Yellowstone River near Livingston and the Little Big-
horn River near Wyola). These streams have a winter low, a runoff peak in May-
July, and intermediate and closely similar flows in the summer (August to
October) and spring (March-April) periods. The March-April, secondary spring
flow peak and associated TSS concentrations observed in the Little Bighorn
River near Hardin and in lower Rosebud Creek was not observed in the upper
reach of the Tongue River. This may be because of the upper river's proximity
to the Bighorn Mountains and because it has no extensive prairie drainage sys-
tem. Except during the runoff period, the inverse relationship between flow
and TDS-SC was not obvious in the upper Tongue, even though the high-flow: low-
flow ratio of 5.04 and the high-flow TDS:low-flow TDS ratio of 0.45 were similar
to those obtained in the more mountainous segments of the Yellowstone River. The
direct relationship between flow and TSS-turbidity, however, was noticeable.
In general, TDS concentrations in the upper Tongue were high when compared
to those obtained in the upper Yellowstone (tables 25-28), and the Boulder and
Stillwater rivers (Karp et al . 1976a). Of the larger streams in eastern Mon-
tana, TDS concentrations in the upper Tongue River were generally higher than
those in the upper Little Bighorn River (table 42), slightly lower than those
in the Bighorn River near St. Xavier (table 46), and generally similar to those
in upper Rosebud Creek (tables 79 and 80). All of these stream reaches, and
the upper Tongue, are close to each other and to mountainous regions; thus,
TDS levels in the upper Tongue were not particularly high on a regional basis.
Total dissolved solids concentrations were significantly lower in samples from
the Tongue River than in samples from the small prairie streams such as Armells
and Sarpy creeks (tables 64-69).
The upper reaches of the Tongue River have been classified as B-D2 by the
State of Montana; B-Do segments should have a marginal or transition zone, cold-
water salmonid fishery (Montana DHES, undated). The high maximum summer temp-
eratures of the upper Tongue indicate that this segment is definitely not B-D-j
in character. Dissolved oxygen concentrations, including the minimum levels
obtained during warm-weather periods and median pH values, were within the
state's criteria for a B-D? stream. Similar median pH values were obtained
during all seasons, but median TDS levels demonstrated the characteristic cold-
weather/warm-weather variations observed in Rosebud Creek and in other streams
of the Yellowstone Basin. Neither the DO nor the BOD5 concentrations suggested
severe organic pollution. This observation was reinforced by the low TOC con-
centrations with a median TOC in the upper reach (9.1 mg/1 ) close to the na-
tional average for unpolluted surface waters (Lee and Hoodley 1967). Thus,
pH, DO, and BOD5 concentrations do not indicate water quality problems in the
upper Tongue River. The outstanding issue is whether temperature is a water
quality problem, and, if so, whether the upper Tongue has been appropriately
classified a B-D2 segment, or whether a B-D3 designation would be more reason-
able.
Fecal coliform concentrations were occasionally high in the upper Tongue,
particularly during the runoff period, and sometimes violated state standards.
189
0
O
LT>
O
cr
vn
■o
10
<T>
n
X>
O
ro
uO
O
CM
0
0
01
X>
co
vo
CO
2:
0
O
CO
O
CM
CO
cr»
CM
O
ro
O
cr
to
CM
O
O
0
cr.
^ x
CT>
x>
Cf*
0
O
O
0
CO
CO
~
in
in
ro
1— tQ
ro
X»
O
C\J
«3"
O
O
3 2:
CO
CO
*y
CO
T
CM
*3-
00
0
0
0
•^
21 C
^
\Ti
0
O
0
,_
^3-
m
O
l/>
ro
C\J
O
in
'->
,—
0
0
u*>
CO
co
O
O
£
IT)
"
CM
0
in
0
CO
CO
0
0
0
0
x>
ID
ID
in
X)
X)
X)
10
IC
„
00
c
2T
*J-
*3"
CO
«a-
«3-
*3-
CO
«3"
CO
CO
uo
CO
X)
o>
CTt
0
0
0
^3"
0
01
■^r
ID
0
x>
'--T
2:
ro
«3"
CO
CO
LT>
"■■
"~~
""
co
r~
10
LO
co
***
ro
■"■
CM
CM
CM
in
O
O
0
0
^j.
q-
CO
-r- X
IX)
O
O
0
CM
a\
O
in
co
u »o
0
0
ro
cr>
m
CO
0.2:
CO
CO
CO
co
CM
CO
CO
0
0
0
<c
.E
U
i- e
CO
O
0
CO
cr»
X)
X)
in
0
0
0
2: 2:
l—
O
r^
LT>
Lf)
x>
"
C\J
C\J
<=r
CM
cm
CM
O
CM
0
0
0
o>
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
X)
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
z
CM
X)
ro
ID
CM
CM
CM
ro
cc
^.^
O
O
en
,_
CO
■0
O
O I"-*-
ro
0
CO
VO
O
O
0
Ol
O
0
CO
CO
O
2:
CM
O—'
CO
^
IT)
***■
•—
»—
1
lO
r~-
^r
CO
ro
ro
0
CM
CM
CM
in
0
0
0
>»
0
0
CO
3 X
O
Lf>
r^
LT)
O
0
x>
0
O
r—
O
in
r-
ro
t- fl
0
cr>
CO
0
<d-
*3"
CO
CO
xi 2:
**
CO
CO
X*
1
f—
1
m
CO
c**
•=3-
**"
r^-
•—
ro
CM
CM
,—
0
^-
O
Ll_
s.
o> c
O
0
lO
O
x>
a>
O
O
0
O
xj t-
0
cr>
O
E 2:
<T>
O
CT.
CM
0
0
O
CD
01
O
■ZL
^
U,
CM
CM
lO
X)
LT)
uo
un
X)
UD
10
in
0
in
^:
«3"
0
*3"
<3"
*r
-=3-
CO
<3-
T3
CO
CO
x>
O
CO
O
0
<d-
O CTt
0
01
en
O
CT>
O
CO
CO
^3"
2:
CO
•~
CO
LT)
■"
CO
"""
**
VO
in
n
ro
*^
0
CM
CM
CM
*3"
O
O-^'
0
^
0
0
X) X
,-J.
^
IT)
C\J
0
0
cn
<3-
, —
CO
O
ID
, —
1 —
O tJ
CA
«3-
O
x>
O
ID
CO
V£>
4-> s:
X>
CO
CT>
CTi
CO
X)
CM
O
CD
0
0
0
4-J
^
O
^
I_
x»
in
X3
0
LT>
CO
ro
^.
r-
to
O
in
CM
O
CD
CO
<=r
□
O
0^2:
m
X>
ID
O
O
CSJ
C\J
0
0
O
O
Z)
<t
CO
C\J
CD
z
CTt
CO
*J"
2
X)
e
s-
O
cc
0
IC
0
Q
3
l/l
O
O
O
zc
<c
C_)
«£
O
U-
h"
a.
t/>
t—
Q
CO
"■
L_>
2:
*""
■z.
■^
KT>
^:
h~
0
Z
190
Of the samples analyzed for fecal s, 17 percent had concentrations in excess of
state criteria for grab samples, 23 percent exceeded 200 colonies per 100 ml,
and the median concentration of fecal s during the May-July period was even
greater, and, therefore, in excess of the state's average standard. However,
93 percent of the annual coliform load was observed during the high-flow period,
dictating that the fecals were derived primarily from non-human and natural
sources. This observation, and the fact that only seven percent of the samples
had fecal concentrations exceeding the permissible criteria for surface water
public supply (2000 colonies per 100 ml), indicates that this variable was not
a major problem in the upper reach.
Fluoride, chloride, and potassium were miscellaneous components of the
calcium bicarbonate water in the upper Tongue, suggesting limestone formations
within the upper drainage. Sulfate concentrations were also high and nearly
equal to the bicarbonate levels; sulfate and magnesium were the secondary ions.
In contrast, sodium concentrations were low, producing low SAR values; as a
result, the waters were non-saline but very hard. The high calcium and sul-
fate concentrations indicate that gypsum formations are also present in the
upper Tongue River drainage (Bighorn Mountains). Because suspended sediment
concentrations in the upper Tongue were not particularly high, salinity and
common ion concentrations were the major potential water quality problems.
The median annual suspended sediment concentration was 30 mg/1 , indicating a
good fishery (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission 1965). Highest
TSS-turbidity levels occurred at high flows, but the median value and the max-
imum concentration were still not particularly high in comparison to those in
other rivers in the basin, including the Yellowstone mainstem.
Judging from the common constituents, the waters in the upper Tongue River
can be considered generally suitable for agricultural supply and excellent for
all stock animals (tables 10-14). The waters have a low sodium hazard for irri-
gation and low SAR values at all times, but they had a low-to-high salinity
hazard for this use depending upon flow and season as shown in table 89.
TABLE 89. Salinity hazard for irrigation from the upper Tongue River depending
upon flow and season.
Percentage of samples having a particular salinity hazard:
low medium high TDS > 500 mg/1 TDS < 500 mg/1
Aug-Oct
Nov-Feb
March-April
May-June
64.3
60.0
78.6
10.9
35.7
40.0
21.4
89.1
Overall, the upper Tongue has a Class I water for irrigation due to the low
boron (less than 0.5 mg/1), SAR, chloride, sulfate, and SC-TDS levels (tables
15 and 16). However, according to the EPA (1976), waters with TDS concentra-
tions in excess of 500 mg/1 should be used cautiously on salinity-sensitive
crop and forage plants (USEPA 1972). As indicated in table 89, the upper river
would have TDS levels exceeding 500 mg/1 for a large percentage of the early
spring and late summer-early fall portions of the irrigation season and in
191
the winter; the waters would have a high salinity hazard for irrigation during
these periods. The best irrigation water from the upper Tongue would occur
during the runoff season, which has a medium salinity hazard; runoff waters
would be applicable to all crop and forage species for about 90 percent of the
time during May, June, and July.
The upper Tongue should probably not be used as a surface water public
supply if other more suitable sources of water are readily available. This is
due primarily to the hard (May-July) -to-very hard (remainder of the year) wate
and to its high dissolved solids concentrations. As indicated in table 89,
about 66 percent of the samples collected from the upper Tongue between August
and April had TDS levels greater than 500 mg/1 , in excess of the permissible
criteria for public supply and the standard for drinking water (table 9). The
water would be much more acceptable for public supply and drinking water durin>
the May-July period, as only 11 percent of the runoff samples had TDS concen-
trations in excess of these criteria and standards. However, the stream's tur
bidities during the runoff season would degrade the segment as a municipal
supply source because they would exceed 75 JTU and the permissible criteria
for turbidity in 40 percent of the high-flow samples. In addition, sulfate
would tend to detract from the value of the upper Tongue as a public supply--
22 percent of the samples had sulfate concentrations in excess of recommended
levels during the August-to-April period. Regardless of the general unsuita-
bility of the upper Tongue for human use, salinity in this stream reach would
have only mild effects, if any, upon the aquatic biota of the river. Only
7.5 percent of the samples had TDS levels in excess of 670 mg/1, and only 4.9
percent had a specific conductance in excess of 1000 umhos/cm. The major por-
tion of the samples from the upper river had TDS and SC levels between 400 and
670 mg/1 (65 percent) and between 600 and 1000 ymhos/cm, respectively.
Low nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were evident in the upper
Tongue during the late summer-to-early fall period of peak biological activity
(table 88); in turn, a peak in nitrogen levels was obtained during the dormant
winter season. Except during the August-October period, median phosphorus
concentrations were at levels high enough to suggest eutrophic conditions, al-
though they did not exceed the EPA's (1974b) criteria for eutrophi cation. The
stream was probably non-eutrophic due to the low median nitrogen concentration
during all seasons except the less critical and dormant winter season of low
temperatures (near 0.0°C). About 17 percent of the samples from the upper Ton
had nitrogen levels in excess of the reference criteria (0.35 mg N/1), and 72
percent of these violations occurred during the winter season. However, only
1.7 percent of the samples had nitrogen levels in excess of the EPA's criteria
In contrast, 56 percent of the samples had phosphorus levels in excess of the
criteria, and 5 percent had concentrations greater than the EPA's more stringei
reference levels. As a result, only 9.4 percent of the total samples from the
upper Tongue had both phosphorus and nitrogen at levels sufficient to cause
eutrophy; 25 percent of the winter samples would have this status and only 3.5
percent would have this characteristic during the warmer weather periods of
the rest of the year. Less than 0.1 percent of the samples had both phosphoru
and nitrogen in excess of the EPA's reference criteria. These relationships
further indicate an absence of eutrophy in the upper Tongue River.
Although high salinity levels restrict certain water uses, the non-eutrop
waters of the upper Tongue have fairly good quality. Trace element concentrat
192
which are discussed in greater detail later in this section, do not generally
detract from this quality. Of considerable itnerest, therefore, is the poten-
tial effect of the Tongue River Reservoir on the upper Tongue's quality; below
are five possible effects:
1) concentrations of dissolved constituents via a water residence
in the reservoir, and, consequently, an evaporation;
2) a lessening of seasonal oscillations in TDS and chemical com-
position;
3) an alteration of seasonal chemical compositions through a
water retention time and mixing;
4) action as a nutrient and sediment trap or sink; and
5) changing the fecal coliform, BOD5, DO, pH, and temperature
characteristics of the stream.
Some of these effects may be related to an alteration of the seasonal flow pat-
terns of the stream through artificial regulation with a general reduction in
stream discharge as a result of reservoir evaporation. These assessments can
most readily be made by comparing water quality and flow data from the inflow
to the reservoir (i.e., the reach above the reservoir near Decker, table 88)
to that from the outflow (i.e., the reach of the Tongue below the reservoir near
Birney, table 90). However, these stations may not be comparable due to the
different periods of collection; thus, the data from the river near Miles City
should also be considered in this regard as a check. In terms of subsequent
water quality changes below the reservoir, comparisons of data from the Birney
segment to that from the downstream Ashland-Brandenburg reach (table 91) are
most appropriate. An assessment of the overall changes in water quality in
the Tongue River from the state line to its mouth can readily be made by com-
paring data from the upper reach above the reservoir to that from the river
near Miles City (table 92) because these sites had similar sampling periods.
The most obvious effects of the Tongue River Reservoir on downstream
quality were related to changes in the river's TSS and fecal coliform concen-
trations; these particular alterations might be considered beneficial. Fecal
coliform levels were noticeably lower in the river below the reservoir, pro-
bably as a result of water residence time in the impoundment with a subsequent
die-off of coliform organisms. The low concentrations of fecals were obvious
in the Birney and the Ashland-to-Brandenburg segments of the river. Although
coliform levels tended to increase slightly below Brandenburg, the effect of
the reservoir on this variable was apparent to the lower reach of the stream,
as the Miles City segment also demonstrated low bacteriological concentrations.
As a result, fecal coliforms pose only occasional problems for use as public
supply in the lower segments of the Tongue--only 3.7 percent of the samples
collected from the river below the dam had fecals in excess of state criteria.
In addition to the decline in coliform levels, TSS concentrations were
definitely lower in the river immediately below the impoundment than in the
Decker reach. The reservoir, therefore, apparently acts as a sediment trap.
The annual median TSS concentration declined from 30 mg/1 above the reservoir
193
■a
o
O
00
ro
o
cn
uo
■3-
o
CM
ifl
<3-
*T
OJ
oo
vD
o
o
00
M3
cn
o
CM
OJ
ro
o
o
o
o
>. X
o
O
cr>
CO
OJ
cn
CO
O
in
00
o
uD
o
=> 5:
ro
CO
00
id
\£>
ro
O
o
o
~3
>,
ro
E c
o
o
lO
O
o
-:
o
o
CO
cn
VO
O
ro
ro
o
£
00
o
O
o
o
z
00
00
00
00
CO
ro
u,
CO
in
o
CO
CO
00
CO
ID
CO
CO
00
CO
X
VO
o
o
■o
oc
CO
"*
o
CT»
"J
o
,__'
CO
o
CO
ro
^
cn
o
CO
CO
ro
*3-
ro
°^
o
s:
OJ
co
CO
CO
u-j
ro
l£>
"""
CM
r~
p-
"*
ro
*
*D
p"
OJ
CM
CM
ro
O
o
o
o
00
CO
CO
o
o
O
en
o
C
o
■3-
oo
o
cn
CM
ro
o
CC
ID
<d-
^~
q.2:
LO
■**
CO
CM
ID
m
""
■—
CO
■"
^
in
ro
LT>
id
■~
OJ
CM
OJ
<a-
O
o
o
J.
u
CM
- c
o
CO
00
^D
o
ID
U3
in
o
o
o
lO
i£)
CO
O
s: z
o
co
OJ
CO
cr»
CM
o
ro
O
O
o
z
r,
LT)
«
a,
-
CM
CO
■n
CO
CM
*&
-
«*
«=r
CO
<3"
-
-
«=r
-
-
-
-
CM
CM
•n
o
CM
CD
ID
o
o
ID
o
o
O)
-cr
o
s:
•-
•—
CO
cn
r**-
OJ
*d-
•—
CM
•-
•^
ID
<=*"
LD
^
•—
ro
OJ
OJ
^~
o
o
o
>>
ro
o
o
<JO
cr.
CO
cri
in
O
o
O
cr.
cn
o
o
s- ro
o
CO
■J3
CM
O
o
o
■n e:
o%
CO
cn
CO
VO
i£>
o
o
<d
l-t-
s-
CM
<3-
OJ c
o
o
o
CO
o
ID
o
o
o
-O •»-
■J3
oc
«*
CM
cn
E s:
CM
o
CO
r-
<^r
■—
OJ
•—
*—
o
*D
*5T
ro
CO
ro
o
CM
OJ
•—
•—
o
o
o
>
o
■z.
CM
*3-
*J-
^J-
ro
o
CO
ro
^3-
ro
ro
OJ
ro
CO
ro
ro
CO
CM
CO
00
z.
UD
VD
00
CO
TJ
ro
CO
*f
UD
cn
<3-
o
o
OJ
<d-
o
<D
CT.
E
CM -—'
■""
cd
r*'
UD
<jO
m
CO
"~
r"~
\o
"*
ro
ro
<d-
O
CM
OJ
OJ
CO
o
o
o
s_
o
CO
0) X
O
ro
o
O
iD
o
**■
n ro
*3-
o
o
O
o
\D
o z
lO
CO
Cn
cn
CO
U")
«3"
UD
o
o
o
o
LU
o
,_
,_
ro
o
C0
CO
O
Cr.
o
o
c
\JD
ID
3 e
cd
ro
o
o
O
o
o
en
3
=C
CM
q.
,_
CO
a
,_
O
^
O
O
O
O
r-
,_
O
O
o
CO
ro
Z
CO
vO
lO
3
ex
.O
£
oo
o
C£
o
«*
(U
<_>
CD
on
o
o
<_J
cn
3Z
<c
t_>
<C
o
u"
Q.
on
1—
h-
*"
o
CO
u-
o
s:
*"
^
^
U0
a:
*"
(/I
O
u-
z
—
194
•u
O
03
0
cd
CM
CO
CM
to
en
.g.
CO
O
LO
CO
01
ro
'
CO
to
to
r--
CO
CM
CM
to
TT
CM
0
- J
rn
0
0
on
to
>^ X
to
O
^r
O
to
VO
on
0
0
ro
to
CM
ON
VO
to
3 n
':
CM
CO
00
to
r~
CM
—
"*
CM
'"-
^
tn
to
*-
CM
( J
■ r
O
0
0
>N
ro
0
t£>
in
m
CO
O
O
to
O
CO
0
CO
ON
LO
C\J
X
CO
0
CM
to
O
CM
CM
0
*r
O
O
0
z
■o
CO
0
0
ro
^r
10
0
CO
0
0
0>
0
0
CO
CSJ
on
£
CM
ro
CO
"~
'""■
CO
r~
CO
O
to
\Ti
lo
•**
■""
CM
ro
O
a
0
O
LO
co
0
0
LO
0
ON
to
0
ro
S- ro
0
O
ON
0
ON
to
CO
O
o-s:
CO
O
^r
CO
CO
CM
O
0
O
<:
-C
u
1- c
0
0
0
CO
■=r
CVJ
O
0
O
O
CM
«3-
CM
O
0
£ E
CM
0
*J"
on
O
O
CM
CM
to
O
CO
CM
CD
c
-
IO
to
to
to
■O
in
«,
-
to
CO
VO
u,
LO
to
CNJ
m
tn
to
to
tr>
CO
«
to
"O
00
to
00
O
CO
CO
0
ro
a
O
QJ
0
>*
LO
0
on
10
CO
s:
CM
0
CO
•—
p^
m
<d-
>—
CM
0
**•
ID
■^
to
LT)
*—
co
CM
CM
m
O
a
O
:>-,
0
CO
to
3 X
00
to
*3-
vo
LO
0
CM
0
S- ID
O*
CM
0
CO
CO
CM
lO
0
-Q £
cr>
CO
to
CO
O
c
0
<U
u_
iL
ai c
0
0
CO
O
0
0
CO
CO
0
—
ro
0
0
.O 'r-
CO
co
^r
CM
s s:
CO
0
CO
CO
0
10
CM
CM
O
C]
0
aj
o
^
CO
*J-
CM
co
CO
CM
CO
CO
ro
en
ro
CO
to
ON
■o
to
CM
CO
CT*
ro
CO
O
O
ro
□
ai
«5T
LO
CO
n
to
s:
CM
■""
CO
crt
to
CM
CO
cn
"-
0
LO
LO
ro
to
UO
"""
CM
CM
CM
- .*
O
cr
0
s_
a;
in
0
0
.o X
IO
to
to
^"
CO
CM
IS
O
*T
0
O <a
O
CM
0
O
00
CM
0
LO
O
*-> e:
CO
CM
CO
00
1 —
■ —
1—
CO
1**
LO
*3"
to
to
' —
CO
CM
CO
uo
O
c;
0
o
4^
t/i c
^r
CM
to
CO
CM
CO
0
tn
CO
O
a
ro
CD
0
13 -r-
CO
IT)
CO
ON
cj\
ro
012:
«3-
CO
0
LO
CM
CO
0
CM
O
0
0
3
<
0
0
CO
00
to
CT>
«J-
CO
CO
CO
CO
00
CO
CO
CC
CO
CO
00
2
a.
-O.
ro
0
J=
i_
CO
Q
oc
O
cu
oz
(_>
0
r-J
O
O
t_J
C7»
a:
<
l_>
«
0
u-
o_
H
l_
CD
CO
<_)
2:
*~
z
^
LO
ac
•"
LO
t-J
u.
.-
a.
195
_
r'-
■a
—
°
cn
CO
r-
O
<g-
^.
CM
m
^
CM
ID
ID
CO
en
CO
ID r*.
o cn
r^ o
CM
ID
cn
Cn
O r-"
e
r-
"**"
lO
^T
CM
00
CM
ro
"**■
CM
CM
**
ro
""
CM
—
~
CM
O
o — "-
o
o
o
o
o
>» x
lO
o
CO
o
^r
CO
o
O
CO
in
CO
o
ID
•— its
CO
«3"
CM
CO
CM
CT.
d e:
<=-
cm
CO
•""
"***
■"■
cc
Cn
ID
CM
P*"
in
■~
r~-
CM
ro
CM
ro
in
O
o
>>
o
s: c
in
in
vO
O
en
ID
ID
CM
o
o
ID
CO
CM
c
^3-
ro
CO
£
ro
in
o
CM
CM
""
""
O
r~
'~
ID
O
O
o
o
CO
in
cn
cn
ID
ID
CO
CO
ro
CO
CO
CO
ID
cm
CO
en
in
CM
CO
<=r
CM
~a
o
ro
CM
o
ID
cn
o
O
O
lO
ID
o
CM
ID
o
o
o
o
CT>
o
CO
E
**
"*
CO
en
ID
CM
"=r
"""
CO
CO
ID
""*
ro
ID
■"
CM
CM
CM
"*
O
o
,_
(^
o
en
o
«r
O
o
^3"
CO
O
en
o
o
ro
o
ID
ID
<
co
CSJ
CO
"~
CO
in
in
■""
m
m
**■*■
ID
"*
CO
CM
CO
ro
CO*
O
o
JZ
t- c
o
C\J
o
o
O
<Ti
CM
o
o
CO
cr.
CO
£ s:
o
<=T
CM
o>
<T>
CM
o
ro
"
-
"*
'—
r—
"~
CO
CM
o
o
°
ID
a
CO
CO
o
o
UD
O
o
o
CO
cn
**■
lO
ro
en
cn
■o
O
id
en
O
O
ID
•~o
CM
ID
o
in
ai
O
CM
CO
^
CM
o
CO
r—
lO
^
03
•—
CM
lO
r"»
in
^f
r~-
in
i—
ro
CM
in
o
o
>!
s-
0
o
CM
00
CM
3 X
:■:
<3-
lO
O
O
o
O
CO
lO
ro
in
CM
o
ro
Cn
•3-
•""
cn
CO
i—
•""
CM
r~
*—
CM
CM
cn
t-*
in
-—
CO
ro
ro
•a-
i—
o
o
S-
ID
QJ C
o
o
«d-
^r
o
O
ID
*^r
CM
o
o
o
O
CO
en
cc
E 21
r-
o
r"N"
m
CM
r—
cm
1 —
"—
o
in
ro
»—
CM
^r
■ —
r-
CM
ro
O
o
o
>
o
^
CM
r^
^r
■^
O
o
ro
ro
ro
m
ro
ro
ro
O
ro
^r
ro
CM
CO
z
en
ID
ro
ro
ro
o
T3
o
CO
CO
cn
O
o
CT>
cc
o
ID
c
s:
CM
CO
co
CTt
o
o
in
CO
vo
"*
1
CM
CM
CM
ro
a
o
s_
o
«g-
o
CM
lO
CM
cu x
G
o
o
cn
O
CO
CM
CO
o
lO
o
ID
10
■^r
O E
,—
CM
CO
—
CO
•""
'"*•
•—
CO
i""-
•—
en
CM
ro
CM
ro
iD
o
o
o
in
o
o
cn
o
o
ID
O
o
=3 SI
ID
CO*
o
o
m
o
CM
o
o
<:
r.
m
m
ID
^
^
^
ID
<D
r^
ID
UD
lO
^
^
ID
^
zz.
cn
lO
CO
CM
5
O
(_)
Q
o
C-J
T)
<
O
«c
~
on
t—
►—
o
CD
U~
0
s:
t—
^
^
uo
on
o
u-
z
a.
19G
to about 10 mg/1 in the Birney reach, with an annual median TSS concentration
of 23 mg/1 in the downstream Ashland-to-Brandenburg segment. TSS levels also
tended to increase downstream below the reservoir, and this increase was most
obvious at high flows and in the Miles City reach of the river, which had an
annual median concentration of 82 mg/1. Thus, regardless of the reservoir's
influence, the Tongue fishery's quality would lessen in a downstream direction,
judging from TSS levels. The fishery should be good above the impoundment,
excellent below the dam to Brandenburg due to the trapping effect of the reser-
voir, and fair near Miles City as a result of the marked downstream sediment
accumulation below Brandenburg. This accrual of sediment and consequent tur-
bidity was apparently at high enough levels in the Miles City segment to also
degrade the value of the stream as a surface water public supply for a large
portion of the year (> 75 JTU).
The Tongue River Reservoir also apparently acts as nutrient sink with
generally lower concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus obtained in the lower
reach of the river from the dam to Miles City. This downstream reduction in
nutrient concentrations was greatest during the winter, and resulted in an
elimination of the November-February nitrogen peak in the lower river; the only
exception to these reductions occurred during the runoff period in the segment
of the river immediately below the dam near Birney. The entire lower segment
of the river was definitely non-eutrophic during all seasons and much less eu-
trophic than upstream above the reservoir; this was most noticeable in the reach
of the river near its mouth near Miles City. The lower river, like the reach
near Decker, was probably nitrogen-limited, but low phosphorus concentrations
would be much more critical in curtailing stream production in the Miles City
reach than in any of the remaining segments of the stream. Based on the cri-
tical nutrient data (table 92), the low primary production potential of the
Miles City reach of the river could reduce the harvest of the Tongue fishery.
In the lower river, only 0.7 percent of the samples would have both nitrogen
and phosphorus concentrations in excess of their reference criteria, contrasting
to a 9.4-percent value for samples from the Decker segment.
The reservoir apparently had little or no effect on the pH, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and BOD5 characteristics of the stream; none of these para-
meters violated state criteria for a B-D2 or B-D3 stream (table 8) or indicated
pollution problems in the lower segments of the Tongue River. BODc values might
have declined below the reservoir, and all reaches demonstrated a March-April
high in this variable with an obvious low during the August-October season; the
BOD5 concentrations did not indicate organic pollution in any instance. This
was also reflected in the stream's generally high DO concentrations and in the
absence of definite, consistent downstream DO changes in the river.
The inverse relationship between DO and warm-weather/cold-weather tempera-
tures was again evident in the Tongue. The river had slightly warmer winter
temperatures immediately below the dam than in the Decker reach, but with cooler
grab sample temperatures in the spring and lower warm-weather maximums in the
Birney segment. This trend was reversed in the river below the reservoir towards
Miles City, where winter temperatures again approached 0.0°C and a general down-
stream increase in median and maximum values were evident below Birney through
the remainder of the year. Grab sample temperatures appeared to be higher in
Miles City than in the Decker reach, which corresponds to the classification
change of the Tongue River from a B-D2 to a warm-water, B-D3 stream towards its
197
mouth. The high jnaximum temperatures near Miles City also indicate a B-D3
stretch of water. The general tendency for the Tongue to have warmer down-
stream temperatures can also be seen in the once-daily temperature data from
the USGS (USDI 1966-1974b) for the June-September period (1970-1974) as seen
in table 93.
TABLE 93. Percentage of temperature readings in the Tongue River during the
June-September period, 1970-1974, greater or less than a particular temperatur
Temperature Range
Tongue River near Decker Tongue River at Miles City
<19.4°C
>19.4°C
>20.0°C
>22.0°C
66.6 53.2
33.4 46.8
32.6 42.0
8.9 10.3
SOURCE: USDI 1966-1974b.
The Tongue River Reservoir apparently has a definite effect in reducing
down-reservoir flow volumes in the Tongue River; this is evident both in the
USGS (1974) average discharge data for various sites on the river and in the
flow data of tables 88 and 90-92. The USGS has obtained a yearly mean flow at
the state line near Decker (above the impoundment) of 496 cfs (14 years of
record) with an 8.5 percent decrease in average discharge at the dam (to 454
cfs with 35 years of record) (USDI 1974). Evaporation from the reservoir pro-
bably accounts for at least a portion of this loss in water volume. An addi-
tional 5.4 percent decrease in average annual flow is evident in the Tongue
at Miles City (to 427 cfs with 31 years of record) (USDI 1974). This added
downstream loss in water volume may be due, in part, to subsequent diversions
for irrigation because of minor tributary inputs below the dam. Yearly dis-
charges as cubic-feet-per-second, calculated from the data in tables 88 and
90-92 by weighting the median flows on the basis of months-per-seasonal-perioc
were similar to the annual mean flows obtained by the USGS as follows (in-
cluding the percentage of difference between the two determinations):
Tongue River above the reservoir near Decker--503 cfs (+ 1.4 percent);
Tongue River below the dam near Birney--388 cfs (- 14.5 percent);
Tongue River near Ashland-Brandenburg--375 cfs; and
Tongue River near Miles City--413 cfs (- 3.3 percent).
The greatest discrepancy between the two sets of annual flow estimates was ob-
tained on the Birney reach (and the Ashland-to-Brandenburg segment), on which
the tabulated data would not be as readily comparable to the USGS information
as the other locations due to the shorter period of collection and smaller satr
pie size. As a result, inter-reach flow comparisons are most valid when made
between the Decker and Miles City and between the Birney and Ashland-Brandenbi
data.
198
The Birney:Ashland-Brandenburg comparison (tables 90 and 91) indicates a
downstream decline in flow below the reservoir while the Decker: Miles City
comparison (tables 88 and 92)) shows the overall decline in yearly flow through
the Montana reach of the Tongue (about 17.9 percent). The Decker:Miles City
comparison suggests definite alterations in the seasonal flow patterns of the
river from above the reservoir to the stream's mouth; these alterations can be
seen in the percentage change in flow by season from the Decker to the Miles
City reach as follows: August-October, -27.5 percent; November-February, +3.0
percent; March-April, +31.1 percent; and May-July, -30.1 percent.
Flows remained relatively constant from the upper to the lower reach of
the river during the winter months, indicating that reservoir inflow equalled
outflow. In contrast, the lower reach had significantly higher flows than the
upper segment in March and April, suggesting an artificial regulation wherein
the reservoir was drawn down in anticipation of the runoff season (outflow
greater than inflow); however, an early spring runoff from the lowlands below
the reservoir could also have contributed to the secondary March-April flow
peak—particularly noticeable at Miles City (table 92). The lower reach below
the impoundment had significantly lower flows than the upper segment during
the runoff season; this might have been related to reservoir regulation through
a storage of good quality runoff water in which the inflow was greater than the
outflow. Downstream flows were also significantly lower during the August-
October period, which might have been due at least partially to irrigation di-
versions below the reservoir during this period of the year.
Such reductions in river flow below the reservoir--8.5 percent near Birney
and 13.9 percent to Miles City (USDI 1974)--would imply a concentration of the
dissolved constituents in the upper Tongue of about 9.2 percent to the lower
stream near Birney and about 16.2 percent near Miles City. Annual median TDS
levels were found to be about 25.4 percent higher in the reach immediately
below the reservoir than near Decker and 19.7 percent greater at Miles City
as follows: Decker reach, 456 mg/1 ; Birney reach, 572 mg/1 ; Ashland-Brandenburg
segment, 677 mg/1, and the Miles City reach, 566 mg/1. The annual TDS load of
the river near Decker was similar to that at Miles City — 619 tons per day and
631 tons per day, respectively, and the 1.9 percent downstream increase in
loads might have been a reflection of tributary inputs to the lower river.
Tributary inputs may also account for the greater increase in TDS at Miles City
than was predicted on the basis of water volume loss. As a result, the Decker:
Miles City comparison (tables 88 and 92) suggests an overall downstream increase
in TDS in the Tongue River.
The Decker:Birney comparison indicates that a part of this downstream in-
crease in TDS was due to the concentrating effects of the reservoir, and the
Birney:Ashland-Brandenburg comparison points to a subsequent increase in TDS
below the reservoir to Miles City. However, this latter feature was not totally
consistent in the data from Birney to Miles City; i.e, data from the Ashland-to-
Brandenburg reach appeared to be anomalous. This apparent anomaly was most
likely due to the incomparability of data from the Birney :Ashland-to-Brandenburg
reaches to that from the Miles City segment because of their different collec-
tion periods (table 3). Water quality runs conducted by the state WQB along
various stations on the lower river at similar dates also indicated a down-
stream increase in TDS (about 23 percent) between Birney and Miles City; this
can be shown by the station (USDI 1968) means of TDS and SC across the six
199
collection sites listed in table 94.
TABLE 94. Downstream increases in TDS in the Tongue River between Birney and
Miles City.
Tongue River Station
TDS (mg/1)
SC
(umhos/cm)
TDS/SC
Pyramid Butte above Birney
711
909
0.78
Birney Village
761
953
0.80
Ashland
762
951
0.80
Brandenburg
818
1060
0.77
Carland
851
1081
0.79
Miles City
876
1098
0.80
The DeckerrBirney water quality data are not readily comparable because
of different collection periods; this may account for the wide discrepancy be-
tween the predicted percentage increase (9.2 percent) in TDS on the basis of
water volume lost and the observed increase (25.4 percent) from above to below
the reservoir. Therefore, the Tongue River's downstream increase in TDS from
Decker to Miles City cannot be quantitatively separated from the effect of the
downstream effects below the reservoir on the basis of the data in tables 88
and 90-92. Data from the limnological investigations of the Tongue River Res-
ervoir may more accurately describe the impoundment's influence in concentratin
downstream dissolved solids because the reservoir's inflow and outflow are
regularly sampled in these studies.
The influences of the impoundment on lessening seasonal fluctuations in
TDS concentrations and chemical composition and its effect in altering seasonal
and downstream chemical compositions are much more obvious from the data in
tables 88 and 90-92. The lessening of seasonal TDS oscillations are shown by
the ratios of low-flow seasonal TDS concentrations of the four Tongue segments
to their runoff TDS levels in table 95.
TABLE 95. Ratios of low-flow seasonal TDS concentrations to runoff TDS levels
in the four Tongue segments.
Ashland-to-
Brandenburg
Decker Reach
Birney Reach
Reach
Mi
les
City Reach
Aug-Oct
2.27
1.30
1.46
1.26
Nov-Feb
2.21
1.72
1.70
1.67
March-April
2.43
1.34
1.60
1.54
May-June
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
These ratios were significantly lower below the reservoir, indicating the devel
ment of reduced differences between runoff and low-flow TDS concentrations belc
the impoundment; this suggests a mixing of seasonal waters as they are stored i
the reservoir. The high TDS season occurred during the March-to-April period i
the upper segment of the Tongue, but high TDS levels developed during the winte
200
season below the dam. TDS concentrations were lower during the late summer-
early fall than during the runoff period in the Birney-to-Miles City reach of
the Tongue; this would be advantageous for irrigation purposes.
Downstream increases in TDS from Decker to Miles City varied considerably
between the four monthly periods. The total downstream percentage increases in
TDS by season were: August to October, -1.9 percent; November to February,
33.2 percent; March to April, 11.5 percent; and May to July, 76.4 percent.
Such seasonal differences were probably the results of reservoir mixing. For
example, the good quality of runoff water coming into the reservoir would be
altered somewhat by combining with the previously stored lower quality of low-
flow water; this mixed water would then be released, partially accounting for
the 76.4 percent increase in TDS downstream below the dam during the May-July
period. However, a part of the seasonal increases in TDS may also have been
due to tributary inputs to the river below the reservoir. The downstream in-
crease in TDS was lowest during the August-October period, contributing to the
development of a fairly good water quality in the lower river during a critical
phase of the irrigation season.
The effect of the reservoir in lessening the Tongue's downstream seasonal
fluctuations in chemical composition and initiating a general downstream chem-
istry change is shown in table 96. In the upper Tongue, the (Ca + Mg):Na and
HC03:S04 ratios were high during the runoff season when influences from the
mountainous headwater areas having calcium bicarbonate waters would be at their
greatest. The ratios were lowest during the March-April period in correlation
with the early runoff from lowland areas having a sodium sulfate water. The
two ratios from the late summer through winter were intermediate to these sea-
sonal extremes. This pattern has been observed in the Little Bighorn and
Yellowstone rivers. In the lower river, however, such obvious seasonal dif-
ferences in ratios and chemical compositions were largely ameliorated with the
calcium-magnesium-sodium and bicarbonate-sulfate relationships which were
similar through all seasons and not descriptive of any obvious seasonal patterns
(except the low HC03:S04 ratio during the spring near Miles City). These de-
velopments were also probably related to the reservoir mixing of seasonal waters
before release. A general tendency for the river to become more sodium sulfate
in character towards its mouth is also indicated by these ratios, particularly
those based on annual median concentrations. The more sodium-sulfate water in
downstream reaches near the mainstem is also characteristic of many streams in
the Yellowstone Basin.
The downstream increase in total dissolved solids indicates a general down-
stream degradation of water quality in the Tongue River. As a result, the
waters in the lower segments of the river would restrict use more than would
waters upstream from the reservoir. Calcium and magnesium concentrations did
not increase to any great extent in the Tongue River towards its mouth, and
the downstream increases in TDS and SC were primarily related to the 2.0-fold
increase in annual median sodium concentrations from Decker to Miles City with
1.2- and 1.3-fold increases in sulfate and bicarbonate, respectively. However,
the river was generally calcium bicarbonate in nature throughout its length in
Montana, although the stream tended to have a calcium-sodium bicarbonate water
near its mouth. Calcium exceeded magnesium in all segments during all seasons;
magnesium, sodium, and sulfate were secondary ionic constituents, and fluoride,
chloride, and potassium were insignificant constituents. The waters were very
201
*d-
O
oo
«*
CO
CD
CO
CNJ
-CT • •
CNJ
o
«3-
CNJ
O CO
to o
CD C_>
S- IT
>>
-M ra
■i- ^:
cj> . .
CO CJ1
CO
1 —
uo
LO
O
cd s:
IX)
co
CO
CO
r^.
•r- +
s:
ro
(_>
<3-
o
CD 00
ID
1^
LP)
l-»
o
s_
CD
O
rs oo
-O O
o
c <_>
0) :r
T3
c -C
mum
5- (O Z
CQ (U ••
1 s- ^~-
T3 CD
LT>
CO
CO
CT>
r~~
c s:
O
co
r-^
CNJ
CD
ro
i— +
CNJ
CNJ
-C
(/) A3
<C O
*d"
O
OO
CNJ
CO
CNJ
CO
CO
CM
CNJ
CO
CNJ
oo
-c o
o o
to ni
CD
s-
fO
>>z:
CD ••
C '— -
J- CD
CM
CD
1 —
o
CD
■r- s:
cn
"=3-
CO
r^.
CO
CQ
+
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
<o
o
^1-
o
OO
^t-
CXI
o
CO
CD
oo
"=d-
CO
CO
-c o
CNJ
CJ (_>
(t3 IE
cd
s-
03
s- z:
CD ••
^: -—»
<_> CD
CO
r^
LT)
CNJ
a; s:
^t
co
CO
CO
O
+
CO
CO
CNJ
"3-
CO
<o
<_>
CD
+->
_Q
S-
c
o
co
a.
3
I— C
o
1
u_
1
<
1
""3
1
eO ra
13 T-
CD
>
s_
>>
C T3
3
o
"3
fO
C CD
<c
■z.
2:
s:
<c s:
202
hard during all seasons in the lower segments, and they were generally non-
saline with the exception of a few slightly saline winter samples.
Waters in the lower Tongue River below the
sodium hazard (SAR values less than 3.1), but a
gation during the low-flow periods of the year,
during the runoff season (USDA 1954). Like the
also has largely a Class I water for irrigation
0.5 mg/1), SAR, chloride, sulfate, SC, and TDS
ever, this water is less suitable for the irrig
and forage plants than the water in the Decker
tion of the lower Tongue samples had TDS concen
(USEPA 1976). The major exception would be the
greater potential effects of salinity on using
gation against using that upstream above the re
dam (tables 90-92) have a low
high salinity hazard for irri-
and a medium salinity hazard
upper segment, the lower Tongue
due to the low boron (less than
levels (tables 15 and 16). How-
ation of salinity-sensitive crop
reach because a higher propor-
trations in excess of 500 mg/1
August-October period. The
the lower Tongue waters for irri-
servoir is shown in table 97.
TABLE 97. Salinity hazard for irrigation in the upper and lower Tongue River.
Percentage of samples having a particular salinity hazard:
upper Tongue near Decker
medium high TDS > 500 mg/1
lower Tongue below the dam
medium high TDS > 500 mg/1
Aug-Oct
Nov-Feb
March-April
May-June
30.2
69.8
32.6
67.4
32.1
67.9
83.0
8.5
64.3
60.0
78.6
10.9
35.7
64.3
3.7
96.3
21.4
78.5
59.7
40.3
58.1
93.5
76.9
38.7
The best water quality for irrigation occurred during the runoff season
in all segments of the Tongue River, although there was a definite downstream
degradation during this period with a greater proportion of the samples from
the lower reach below the dam having a high salinity hazard. The runoff waters
from the lower segments would probably be applicable to salinity-sensitive spe-
cies about 61 percent of the time, as opposed to 90 percent of the time
from the upper reach above the Tongue River Reservoir. This May-July degra-
dation in downstream quality might have been related to reservoir concentrating
effects and seasonal mixing, to the mode of reservoir operation, or to down-
stream tributary inputs with a poor water quality. A lesser quality or irri-
gation water was available from the Tongue during the late summer and early
fall than during the runoff period, when there was a high salinity hazard in
most of these warm-weather samples; these waters would be applicable to salinity-
sensitive plants for only about 36 percent to 42 percent of the time during this
season. The quality remained unchanged or improved downstream from August to
October, contrasting with the degradation observed during the runoff season.
Absence of downstream change might have been due to reservoir operations
causing the water quality to be artificially maintained for irrigation. That
is, if water quality during August-October had been allowed to change in a
fashion similar to that observed during the winter season, then the waters
would have been much less fit for irrigation than was observed. The Tongue
River during the March-April period also demonstrated a slight downstream de-
gradation in quality and an increase in salinity; these waters would be generally
203
unfit for the irrigation of salinity-sensitive species during about 77 percent
to 79 percent of this early spring season.
The lower segments below the dam would also be generally unsuitable as a
surface water public supply due to the water's extremely hard nature, high tot<
dissolved solids concentrations, and high sulfate levels; the lower Tongue wou'
be less suitable for this use than the upper reach due to the downstream in-
creases in TDS and sulfate. In the lower segments of the river, 78 percent of
the samples collected between August and April had TDS levels in excess of the
permissible criteria and standards for public supply and drinking water; this
was true of 66 percent of the samples above the reservoir. The waters of the
lower Tongue would be more acceptable for public supply during the runoff peric
when the TDS levels are diluted, but it would still have a much lower value the
the upper reach--about 40 percent of the lower reach May-July samples had TDS
levels greater than 500 mg/1 , and only 11 percent of the upstream segment sam-
ples. The high suspended sediment concentrations of the runoff season would
tend to detract from the better water quality for municipal supply at this
time, particularly near Miles City where 63 percent of the May-July samples
had turbidities in excess of 75 JTU (compared to 40 percent of the samples
collected above the reservoir); 14 percent of the samples collected between
August and April near Miles City had turbidities in excess of this reference
criteria. Turbidity would be much less critical above Miles City to the dam,
as only 6 percent of the yearly samples would have turbidities greater than 75
JTU as a result of the trapping effect of the reservoir. Twice as many samples
collected below the dam over the Decker reach had sulfate concentrations in
excess of the recommendations for public supply (45 percent as opposed to 22
percent).
The downstream salinity increase in the Tongue River could also produce
somewhat greater effects on the stream's biota in the lower segments than up-
stream. About 31 percent and 23 percent of the samples from the river below
the Tongue River dam had TDS concentrations and SC levels greater than 670 mg/1
and 1000 umhos/cm, respectively; in contrast, only 7.5 percent and 4.9 percent
of the samples from the upstream reach had TDS and SC in excess of these refer-
ence levels. However, the overall effects of salinity on aquatic life would be
expected to be mild throughout the river from Decker to Miles City because mosl
of the samples collected from the lower segments had TDS concentrations betweer
400 mg/1 and 670 mg/1 (50.8 percent) and less than 400 mg/1 (18.3 percent). S(
levels were usually between 600 umhos/cm and 1000 umhos/cm (59.6 percent) and
less. than 600 umhos/cm (17.3 percent). The entire length of the Tongue River
in Montana should be an excellent source of water for all stock animals because
TDS and ionic constituent concentrations in samples from the stream were well
below the threshold and limiting levels prescribed for these parameters (tables
10-14).
Data for miscellaneous constituents and numerous trace elements, in both
TR and dissolved forms, are also available on the Tongue River from the USGS
and the state WQB. These data were not seasonally classified and were compilec
according to river reach as summarized in table 98 for the Birney and Decker
segments and in table 99 for the Ashland-Brandenburg and Miles City segments.
As indicated in these tables, ammonia concentrations were low and were not at
levels high enough to significantly increase the eutrophic potential during
most seasons. Ammonia was not at adequate pH levels to suggest toxicity to
204
TABLE 98. Sunmary o
f miscellaneous constituent
and trace element coni ei
Montana.
Various sites near Decker
above
the resi
Varlou
and abo.-
N
Miscellaneous
constituents and
total recoverable
metals
Min Max Med
N
Dissolved metals
Min
He :
const' '
total re
metaH
N Min Max
Med
N
Oissolved «*talsc
Med
do"
23 87 107
93
Fecal strep
1
10
NH3-N
8
0.02 0.14 0.06
13 '.01 0.13
0.03
Si
77
3.4 14 8.1
24 1.1 7.7
5.3
(21?)
TOC
4
4.8 16 9.1
1 6 10
9
Ag
3
0.0 '.001
0.0
Al
3
.13 2.8 .50
7
0.0 .03
.01
9 -.10 0.54
0.29
.01 .12
.02
As
7
0.0 -=.01 .002
2
0.0 0.0
0.0
8 <.001 <.01
0.002
5
0.0 .002
0.0
B
3
.1 .12 .11
137
0.0 .38
.09
(.8?)
11 '.10 0.18
0.10
3
.10 .12
.11
Ba
3
0.0 .07
0.0
Be
1
..
2
0.0 <.01
<.01
5
0.0 .01
0.0
Cd
9
0.0 ^.01 <.001
2
0.0 0.001
'.001
16 <.001 0.01
<.001
.
Co
1
.-.01
Cr
4
0.0 0.01 <.01
2
0.0 0.01
<.01
4 <.01 0.01
'.01
1
-
.002
Cu
9
<.01 0.01 <.01
7
.002 .011
.004
22 0.0 0.02
• .01
6
.002 .004
.004
Fe
12
.05 4.8 .17
46
0.0 0.9
.12
18 .04 1.4
.15
18
0.0 .09
.03
(.26?)
Hg
8
0.0 '.001 <.001
7
0.0 .0002
0.0
21 0.0 -.001
<.0002
4
0.0 0.0001
<.0001
Li
2
0.0 .02
.01
3
.02 .03
.02
Mn
9
.02 .21 .06
2
.01 .03
.02
18 <.01 0.12
0.04
23
0.0 .12
.01
Mo
2
0.0 0.001
3
0.0
Ni
2
.002 .002
.002
5
0.0 .006
Pb
6
0.0 <.10 <.05
7
.001 .009
.004
19 <.01 -.10
'.05
E
0.0 .006
Se
4
0.0 <.001 0.0
9
0.0 .002
.001
10 0.0 0.001
«.001
6
0.0 .001
.001
Sr
2
.39 .57 .48
6 .55 .78
.63
3
.52 .73
.52
V
3
<-10 <.10 .10
2
.001 .001
.001
11 <.05
■ .10
5
.001 .009
.002
Zn
10
<.01 0.03 0.01
7
0.0 .03
.01
23 <.0\ 0.06
<.01
6
.002 .02
.01
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1.
aLi: <.01
bBe, Co, and Li: '.01 , N=l.
cCd: 0.0, N=l; Co: <.007, N=l.
DO expressed as percentage of saturation.
205
TABLE 99. Summary of miscellaneous constituent and trace element concentrations measured in the Tongue River below Ashland, Montana.
Various sites near
Ashland
-Brandenburg
s City
N
Miscel laneous
constituents and
total recoverable
metals
Max Med
N
Dissolved metals
Min
Med
N
Miscel laneous
■ ts and.
total recoverable
metals
Min Max Med
N
Dissolved
Min
metals
Max
c
Med
Color
10
4 20 6
00d
22
61 106 96
23
79 110 97
Fecal strep
1
0
12
16 3400 89
NH3-N
12
'.01 0.18 0.06
11
<.01 0.14 0.04
Si
18
1.8 10 6.5
92
2.6 12 7.0
TOC
5
8 17 10
7
6.8 27 16
Ag
2
0.0 <.001
<.001
Al
6
00 0.90 0.30
(6.0?)
2
0.0 .030
.015
3
.35 3.9 .60
As
15
<.001 <.01 0.002
2
0.0 0.001
-.001
9
.001 0.026 0.002
6
0.0
.001
0.0
B
11
<.10 0.49 0.11
15
.02 .17
.10
13
.10 0.24 0.10
39
.025
.210
.110
6a
2
.076 .090
.083
1
.09
Be
2
.01 .01
.01
Cd
26
0.0 0.01 <.001
2
0.0 0.001
-.001
21
0.0 0.02 -.001
6
0.0
.001
0.0
Co
7
.01 0.10 <.05
6
0.0
<.01
0.0
Cr
7
0.0 0.05 0.01
2
0.0 <.01
<.01
9
0.0 0.08 <.01
6
0.0
.01
0.0
Cu
28
0.0 0.03 <.01
2
.001 .005
.003
23
■=.01 0.17 <.01
6
.001
.007
.003
Fe
Hg
26
24
.04 3.2 .21
(.13?)
0.0 <.001 <.0002
15
2
0.0 .19
^.0001 0.0001
.04
21
19
.03 74 .68
0.0 0.0035 <.0002
74
6
0.0
0.0
.255
.0002
.03
0.0
Li
2
.03 .03
.03
12
-.01 0.01
1
--
--
.03
Mn
22
-.01 0.20 0.02
2
0.0 .02
.01
19
.01 .68 .05
18
0.0
.02
.01
Mo
2
0.0 <.002
■ .002
Ni
2
.002 .008
.005
Pb
20
<.01 0.10 .05
2
.001 .002
.002
18
0.0 00 <.05
6
.ooi
.005
.003
Se
9
0.0 .001 0.1
10
0.0 .003 .001
6
0.0
.001
0.0
Sr
9
.65 1.0 .77
2
.69 .94
.82
8
.08 1.3 .75
1
--
.86
V
10
<.05 <.ll <.10
2
<.003 -.003
<.003
11
-.05 0.17 -.10
]
--
"
.001
Zn
20
-.01 0.05 <.01
4
0.0 .08
.04
23
'.01 0.34 0.01
6
.01
.02
.01
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1.
.01, N=2; Se: 0.0, N=l.
.01, N=2.
cAg: <,001, Al : 0.02, Be: 0.01, Mo: 0.0, Ni : 0.001;
00 expressed as percentage of saturation.
206
the river's biota, even at maximum concentrations.
The lower river below the dam was close to DO saturation in all segments,
and the percentage of DO saturation tended to increase downstream in opposition
to a general increase in TOC levels. Median TOC concentrations were near the
national average for unpolluted streams (Lee and Hoodley 1967) between Decker
and Brandenburg, and TOC was only slightly above the national average concen-
tration near Miles City. Fecal strep concentrations did not indicate municipal-
organic pollution, and the annual median fecal col i form: fecal strep ratio near
Miles City (0.17) indicated that the fecal counts obtained from the Tongue
River were probably derived from animal rather than human sources (Mi 1 1 i pore
Corporation 1972). Silica concentrations in the Tongue were also generally
below the national average for surface waters (Davis 1964), and silica levels
tended to drop immediately below the dam from up-reservoir concentrations, pos-
sibly as a result of phytoplankton utilization in the impoundment and an ulti-
mate deposition to the sediments via the diatom frustules. Silica concentra-
tions then tended to increase from Birney to Miles City.
None of these constituents suggested water quality problems. The high
TDS levels of the stream, and the high TSS concentrations in some reaches and
seasons, are the main detractions from the river's water quality.
Most of the trace elements in the Tongue River were in low concentrations
and did not suggest major water quality problems. Of the' total recoverable
and dissolved concentrations, this includes Ag, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, Li, Mo,
Ni , Pb, Se, and V. TR concentrations of Al , Fe, and Mn were occasionally high
in the river samples, but this was probably related to suspended sediment levels,
since the maximum-median TR levels of these parameters declined below the dam
near Birney in correspondence with the decrease in TSS. The TR levels of Al ,
Fe, and Mn then demonstrated a subsequent downstream increase below the reser-
voir in correlation with the downstream increase in TSS; this was particularly
noticeable near Miles City in relation to the high TSS concentrations of this
stream segment. However, the dissolved concentrations of these three consti-
tuents were low and usually below their reference criteria. Only 2 percent and
4 percent of the samples from the Tongue had dissolved concentrations of Fe and
Mn, respectively, in excess of these criteria. High TR concentrations of B, Cu,
Sr, and Zn were also occasionally obtained in the Tongue samples, but the dis-
solved levels of B, Cu, and Zn were consistently below their reference levels,
and Sr was not at adequate levels to pose water quality problems. Of the metals,
therefore, only mercury appeared to have TR and dissolved concentrations high
enough to detract from the stream's quality by sporadically exceeding the grab
sample criteria for public supply and aquatic life (tables 9 and 19). Median
dissolved concentrations of mercury were consistently below these reference
levels, but 26.3 percent of the samples from the Tongue had detectable levels
of this constituent, and 10.5 percent of the samples had concentrations as large
as 2 yg/1.
Miscellaneous Tributaries
Most drainage basins, like the Tongue River system, are characterized by
having a few major tributaries and numerous minor tributaries to the mainstem.
Generally, water quality data are not available for the minor streams due to
their small flow volumes or their intermittent-ephemeral natures. However,
207
some data have been collected for such streams in the Tongue River drainage as
a result of the strippable coal deposits in the region and the related necessity
of preparing environmental impact statements.
The USGS has recently initiated a sampling program that includes many of
these small streams (table 3), and the state WQB has collected some samples from
several of these tributaries (table 6). Nevertheless, such data are not abun-
dant due to the short periods of collection, and, since many of these small
streams are intermittent or ephemeral, this would preclude sampling for several
months of the year when the creeks happened to be dry, further reducing sample
size. The data, therefore, were insufficient for a seasonal classification,
and water quality information was combined geographically in order to expand
the data base, as shown in table 100. Trace element data were further combined
on this basis as shown in table 101. The major tributaries—Hanging Woman,
Otter, and Pumpkin creeks--are considered in other sections of this report.
The various small and minor streams of the Tongue River drainage do not
appear to be affected by large pollution inputs. Values of pH were neither
distinctively high nor noticeably low, and they were within the state criteria
for B-D streams. Dissolved oxygen levels were high and also within state stan-
dards, and median DO concentrations were usually within 10-11 percent of satur-
ation. These features, plus the low BOD5 levels, suggest a general absence of
organic inputs; however, median TOC concentrations were above the national
average, particularly in the lower streams of the drainage below Birney. Fecal
col i form concentrations were low and did not suggest municipal pollution. These
features, plus the fact that the TSS-turbidity levels of these small streams
were not particularly high in comparison to those obtained from the Tongue River
and other streams in the Yellowstone Basin, indicate that the high TDS and ionic
constituent concentrations are the major features detracting from the water qual-
ity of these small tributaries. However, the importance of TDS varied consid-
erably among the 15 creeks.
In some instances, TDS and ionic constituent concentrations were remarkably
low and did not preclude any water uses. This is seen in the minimum values for
the data sets and by some of the median concentrations. In these cases, collec-
tions were probably made during a runoff period from a recent rain or snowmelt,
explaining the high maximum flows. Diluted TDS concentrations would be expected
from these samples. The ephemeral streams of the region would probably produce
this type of water quality data. The more southern tributaries of this nature
above Birney were generally calcium-magnesium bicarbonate, and sodium and sul-
fate were the secondary ionic constituents. However, the more northern tribu-
taries were sodium sulfate, which corresponds to the downstream chemical change
in the Tongue River to a more sodium sulfate composition. SAR values were low
in these two classes of streams.
Some samples were collected which had high TDS and ionic constituent con-
centrations. This is demonstrated by the maximum values of each data set and
by the median data for Deer and Cook creeks. Streams having this type of
water quality are probably the intermittent and perennial minor streams of
the region, sampled during low-flow periods, with small but generally sustained
flows (explaining the low minimum flows). Although low water volumes would
probably preclude many of the water uses from these streams, they would probably
have a poor class of water for irrigation during most of the year (Class II or
208
10
ro
10
TJ
O
cn
en
O
ID
0
0
in
' J
0
CO
O
CTi 0»
CO
*3"
0
0
en
CO
VD
c 2:
^
00
P"»«
in
*3"
CO
CO
«--
•—
1
CO
CM
*3"
en
1—
•—
•—
*r
•—
O
0
cn
>> - cn
01 3 0
in
0
O
O
O
0
O
«r
c 0 — 1 X
0
IO
0
O
0
CO
O
0
0
O
O
ro
O
1- 0 t>
0
cn
0
CM
CM
CM
CO
co
0
CO
^3-
CO
c
— E
co
00
CO
CM
CO
C
O
0
OQ - E
s- 0
3 0) u
O > 1/1
1— T3 — -— - c
0
0
O
0
O
en
0
CM
a
O
O
0
o> 01 _i o> •-
in
en
O
a
.0. co ^2:
0
0
r^
'—
CO
CM
CM
lO
-—
O
'--
CO
in
CO
in
O
IO
WT
•—
»-
O
O
v
i/i * 1- E
O) TJ *J OJ
1) a yi i-
lcq or
O — -U. 1— 2T
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
0
in
O
co in
T3
0
*r
CM
0
0
en
m
0
0 •
01
CO
CO
en
CO
CO
CM
in
>>2:
■—
CM
CO
•—
'—
CO
CM
•—
1
1
CO
•—
10
«—
-—
CO
m
m
in
^
■—
0
0 —
c
0
0
0
O
CO
CO X
co
cn
ID
s
*3"
O
■3-
,
CO
,
,
^
0
CO
0
CO
0
0
in
"2
0
0
0
"^
|-;
^
s- 2:
*3"
,—
CO
CM
*-
CM
1
«—
1
1
en
»--
^
CM
■—
CO
no
in
ID
T
•—
'—
0
<u
c
,
-* c
0
0
CO
0
0
o> •■-
en
CO
IO
ID
eu 2:
O
0
ID
en
^-
O
en
*r
O
0
0
s-
c_>
_^;
0
0
CO
co
CM
CM
CM
(_> ^
O
O
O
ID
- — -0
■ CO
CO
en
CM
B
CO
O
^3-
0
■— c 2:
0
CO
CO
CO
CO
^-
en
«3-
CO
CM
^~
0
0
O
•^ Zl
E 0
=*, s- >-
Ol 3
10
cn
<3-
ID
CO - X
^-
0
10
CM
O
ID
ID
CO
en
ID
CO
CM
ID
0
CM
CO
O
— "cj 2:
co°
«3"
«*
IO
ID
en
CO
0
0
O
CO - s-
C i-
0) 0 f-
> >, 3
O C Q- C
0
O
0
in
CO
0
O
.0 to on ■<-
0
CO
0
30
ID
«>u 2:
v
0
^
•—
p~
•—
*3-
CO
l—
O
•—
lO
ID
in
|N~
O
^
-O
CM
CM
0
0
O
in --0
qj •— a
«3 1-
S- CO ■»->
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
ID
ID
c_> — 00 ^
CO
^3-
CO
CO
O
0
cn
O
O
■0
■3"
CM
«J-
in
O
in
cn
CO
cn
CO
O
O
0
0
CM
cr»
0
*3-
10
CO
0
IO
ID
in
s- 2:
O
CO
LO
CM
<3"
CM
ID
uo
in
^3-
CM
0
O
O
01
01
O
en
0
0
*r
0 X
^
en
O
0
O
0
i£>
00
c.
ID
0
CM
O
CM
^"
CM
t- 2:
Cn
CM
CO
lO
«3"
CO
CO
CM
00
CO
ID
CM
0
O
0
ro
01
c
,_
_x c
0
«a-
O
CO
10
O
en
0
O
0
OJ •—
10
«3-
0
ID
CO
01 2:
O
0
CM
CM
CO
0
O
s-
l_>
i_
OJ
01
Q Z
CO
CO
co
CO
CO
CO
O
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CC
X
CO
X
00
CO
3
Q.
.a
CO
O
uo
O
a£
O
<D
0
0
3
l/>
0
O
O
en
I
«I
O
<:
0
Ll-
0.
UO
1—
*~
l_
Q
CO
U_
u
2:
t—
z
^
LTl
zz.
""
00
l-J
""
z
0-
209
TABU
ons mea*. n
Deer Creek
above Bin
Coo*
below Bin
i
Med
Dissolved metals
Hin
Med
meous
total recoverable
metals
Min Max Med
N
Dissolved
Min
metals
Med
14 78 129
32
63 117 89
1 19
31
2.7 28 8.8
14
2
34 43 39
.12
2
.03 .06
.045
5
.10 11 .17
0.0
.02
.02
11
.002
2
.004 .004
.004
18
0.0 .005 .002
2
.001
.004
.003
1
16
14
.07 .19
.13
32
.07
.76
.16
Ba
1
.07
2
.043
.060
.052
Be
3
0.0 -.003
0.0
3
0.0
Cd
8 <.001 0.02
0.001
2
0.0 .001
--
18
'.001 0.03 0.01
3
0.0
<.03
0.0
Co
1
-
'.006
2
'.009
<.013
'.013
Cr
7 0.0 .06
.01
2
0.0 <.006
<.006
16
0.0 .02 .01
3
0.0
<.013
<.010
Cu
11 0.0 .07
.01
2
.005 .009
.007
17
<.01 0.05 0.01
3
.002
.008
.003
12 .08 5.0
.96
14
.01 .29
.10
18
.05 10 1.1
32
0.0
.23
.08
Hg
Li
12 0.0 -.001
.0002
1
1
.0001
.06
17
0.0 <.001 0.0
(.0002)
2
2
0.0
.10
<.0001
.11
<.0001
.105
Mn
12 .02 .85
.16
2
.02 .12
.07
17
'.01 0.17 0.08
3
.02
.05
.04
Mo
1
..
<.003
2
•=.003
<.004
'.004
2
<.006 <.006
<.006
(.002)
3
<.006
'.008
<.008
(.002)
Pb
7 <.05 0.20
0.10
2
'.006 '.006
<.006
(.004)
16
<.10 '.10 '.10
3
'.009
<.013
'.013
(.006)
Se
7 0.0 0.0
0.0
16
0.0 .003 .001
Sr
1
.55
1
..
.87
2
1.4
1.8
1.6
1
.1
1
..
<.003
2
<.008
'.008
Zn
9 '.01 0.05
0.01
2
.01 .06
.035
7
0.0 .07 .01
3
0.0
.02
.01
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1.
aAg: '.001, N-l.
bAg: '.002, N=2.
DO expressed as percentage of saturation.
210
Class III) and be poor sources of water for municipal supply (with high TDS,
sulfate, and hardness levels) and stock (with high TDS, magnesium, and sulfate
levels in excess of the threshold and limiting criteria for many stock animals,
particularly in Deer Creek).
These streams, with their low flows, would also provide a poor environment
for freshwater biota since TDS and SC levels usually exceeded 1350 mg/1 and
2000 umhos/cm. These streams had either a sodium sulfate (as in Deer Creek)
or a sodium bicarbonate water (as in Cook Creek), with magnesium, calcium, and
sulfate or bicarbonate the secondary ionic constituents; SAR values were high.
Fluoride, chloride, and potassium were insignificant constituents of all of
these miscellaneous waters, and nitrogen and phosphorus were not in concentra-
tions high enough to suggest eutrophy, except in a few isolated samples. Trace
element levels did not indicate water quality problems (table 101). Of these
constituents, only manganese had dissolved concentrations in excess of the ref-
erence criteria (in 40 percent of the samples).
Hanging Woman Creek
Hanging Woman and Otter creeks, two of the major tributaries of the Tongue
River, join the river in the southern portion of its drainage in Montana (USDI
1968). Hanging Woman Creek is the more southern of the two streams, flowing
in a northerly direction from Wyoming and joining the mainstem near Birney.
Although the volumes of flow in these two creeks are not particularly high,
they appear to be perennial, as no days of zero flow were recorded by the USGS
in 1974 (USDI 1974). Flows in Hanging Woman Creek were somewhat less than
those in Otter Creek during this year. These streams had an average annual
flow between 5 cfs and 8 cfs in 1974, and daily flows ranged from about 0.2
cfs in the late summer to values approaching 150 cfs during the chinook per-
iods of the winter season (in January and February) (USDI 1974). Such early
runoff events are characteristic of lowland prairie streams.
The added average discharge of the two creeks represents about 3 percent
of the mean annual flow of the Tongue River; thus, these major tributaries could
exert an influence on Tongue River quality, particularly if they happen to have
the high TDS concentrations that are also typical of a prairie stream. Some
water quality data have been collected from these two streams by the state WQB,
and the USGS has recently initiated a monthly water quality sampling program on
the creeks in conjunction with their flow gaging stations. As a result of
these efforts, data for the major parameters were adequate for a seasonal clas-
sification as summarized in table 102 for Hanging Woman Creek.
The water quality in Hanging Woman Creek is characteristic of what might
be expected from a lowland, eastern stream in the Yellowstone Basin; this is
evident in its high TDS concentrations and SC levels and in its sodium sulfate
composition. These features correlate with the downstream increases in TDS-SC
in the Tongue River below the reservoir and to the river's chemical change
towards a more sodium sulfate water in a downstream direction to Miles City.
TDS concentrations in Hanging Woman Creek were between 2.43 times greater in
the winter and 6.14 times greater during the runoff period than those in the
Tongue River below the dam near Birney; data from these two locations are directly
comparable due to their similar periods of collection (table 3). Specific
211
O
0
0
LO
O
0
O
*r
■o
CO
CM
LD
O
0
0
cn
in
O
0
CO
O
0
01
co
«r
O
CM
CO
0
CO
CD
CO
cc
r^j
O
CO
0
ro
CO
CM
in
CO
CO
*r
IT)
T
0
O
0
CO
>» X
<3-
co
cn
cn
CO
O
ro
CO
cc
CO
cn
0
0
CM
CA
CO
*d-
CM
CO
<x>
■ r
3 31
CO
00°
f«*
CO
vXt
LP
CM
0
O
0
^
=*>
0
^
O
O
cn
s: c
0
CO
Cn
O
O
O
r3-
O
0
0
CO
CO
0
s:
0
CO
CM
ro
CM
CM
00
CO
lD
**
0
O
v
2:
«
CO
10
m
„
-
CM
cn
CM
CM
U,
»
CO
CO
CO
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
CO
cn
cn
LP
0
CO
■0
CTt
00
en
0
in
CO
O
CM
CO
O
O
a
»X>
0
ro
cn
0
s:
CM
co
r-
CM
00
CM
■""
"~~
"*
r~"
cn
■""
r~"
CO
CO
in
LT>
"*
co
0
v
O
_
0
co
CO
LTI
CM
O
0
•X)
O
*x>
»x»
O
O
0
0
x>
^3-
CO
cn
en
"X)
CO
co
CO
CO
0
0
<
<—
cn
co'
co
ro
•~~
CO
""
CO
CM
CM
■—
■""
CO
■""
^
UD
cn
CM
■""
0
O
0
jt.
u
O
S- c
O
*x>
O
0
13
O
0
«d-
CJ>
z: s:
0
*3"
O
0
00
cn
0
O
v
s
-
-
-
-
«
-
-
-
-
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
<x>
<x>
co
<x>
co
>3-
-
-
0
O
-0
0
0
CD
O
0
O
O
CO
0
0
CM
0
CD
O
O
0
CM
s:
co
0
CO
CM
•—
r-
'-
*—
«3"
cn
-—
<—
f^
■—
*tf
"X>
CO
r—
-—
O
0
>i
s-
O
ro
O
0
ro
CM
ZJ X
CO
CO
00
O
0
O
cn
cn
<3"
S- T3
CO
C\j
CM
O
0
cn
cn
<x»
0
*T
XI 21
CO
CO
CO
<X)
O
O
ai
sL
CM
<D C
0
O
O
■=3-
CO
O
0
O
O
XI •!-
O
CO
ro
£ 2:
CD
CO
*3"
<Xi
Cn
CO
0
CO
CM
co
a-
0
CD
O
<u
0
■zi
O
*3-
cn
cn
O
O
0
■a
O
CO
O
O
O
O
«^-
co
0
O
O
aj
co
O
O
CO
»x>
0
cn
0
2:
CM
r~
CO
cm
CM
en
CO
CO
0
r_
'~
r~
CO
CO
*~
in
«x»
^3"
r—
"~
r~
O
O
j_
UJ
cn
0
O
vo
CO
CD
ro
<u x
CO
O
0_T
XI T3
O
0
CO
0 21
CO
•Xi
CD
O
0
UJ
0
0
4-> c
O
0
CO
O
0
O
Cn
vX>
O
O
CM
O
O
0
O
<X>
3 2:
0
CO
CO
<X)
cn
CO
«d-
«d-
O
O
O
01
=j
<s:
2:
r-
f-
>x>
f-
«x>
CM
CM
lO
-
CO
CO
CO
CO
co
■Xl
co
"X>
CO
<X>
CO
CO
•XI
cn
2
XI
ro
0
0
or
O
«=r
ai
c_>
O
3
0
0
CJ
<:
t_)
<:
0
u"
l—
tt
"*
h_
1—
'_
a
CO
LJ-
t_)
s:
l—
Z
^
LT>
IT
l—
00
c_)
Ll_
Z
o_
212
conductance levels in Hanging Woman Creek were between 2.74 times higher in
the winter and 4.94 times higher during the runoff season than those in the
Tongue near their confluence. The waters in the smaller stream were extremely
hard, but they were slightly saline, and TDS concentrations in Hanging Woman
Creek were at levels high enough to affect most water uses.
The TSS-turbidity levels of the tributary were low and did not indicate
major water quality problems; annual median values of 16 JTU and 40 mg/1 would
indicate a good-to-moderate fishery (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commi-
ttee 1965), given no other limiting factors. Such low TSS-turbidity levels in
this tributary correspond to the general absence of distinct downstream in-
creases in these variables in the Tongue River between the dam and Brandenburg.
However, the high maximum turbidity value in March-April indicates occasional
large slugs of sediment in this tributary. Highest TSS levels in Hanging Woman
Creek were obtained during the May-July, high-flow period of the stream, cor-
relating with the season of maximum downstream increase in TSS in the Tongue
mainstem.
Although the median BOD5 levels in Hanging Woman Creek during the winter
and the spring were somewhat higher than the BOD5 levels typical of most streams
in the Yellowstone drainage, they were not at levels high enough to suggest
organic pollution--only 36 percent and 9 percent of the samples had BOD5 con-
centrations in excess of 4 mg/1 and 7 mg/1, respectively. High BOD5 levels
occasionally exceeding 4 mg/1 and approaching 10 mg/1 can be expected to occur
even under natural conditions. The high DO concentrations and low fecal coli-
form levels indicate an absence of pollution inputs to the creek. The concen-
trations of these variables were generally within the state criteria for a B-D?
stream during all seasons, as were the pH values, and the fecal counts were well
below the permissible level for a surface water supply (USDI 1968). In addition.
Hanging Woman Creek does not appear to be in a eutrophic condition at present.
Although a few samples were obtained from the creek with high phosphorus con-
centrations in excess of the EPA's (1974b) reference criteria (0.35 mg P/l),
93 percent of the samples had phosphorus concentrations less than this level,
and the median concentrations of this critical nutrient were less than 0.05
mg P/l during all seasons. Because nitrogen concentrations were extremely low,
except for a winter peak observed in other streams, only 1 percent of the sam-
ples from Hanging Woman Creek would be expected to have both nitrogen and phos-
phorus in excess of their reference levels. These features, and the water's
low suspended sediment concentrations, indicate that salinity is the major water
quality problem of the stream.
Sodium and sulfate are the dominant cation and anion in water samples from
the creek (table 102). As a result, SAR values were high, indicating a medium
sodium hazard for irrigation at the specific conductance levels of the stream.
Magnesium concentrations exceeded those of calcium; together, these constituents
were the secondary cations. Bicarbonate was the secondary anion, and chloride,
fluoride, and potassium were the minor chemical components of the samples.
Fluoride concentrations were somewhat higher in Hanging Woman Creek than in
most other streams of the Yellowstone Basin, with the exception of those in the
upper reach of the Yellowstone mainstem near Yellowstone National Park above
Livingston tables 25 and 26). Fluoride levels were also \/ery close to the
optimum range for drinking water in Hanging Woman Creek and were generally
within the control limits (table 9).
213
Hanging Woman Creek would provide a very poor class of water for public
supply due to its extremely high total dissolved solids, sulfate, and hardness
levels. Median sulfate concentrations of the stream exceeded the threshold
levels for stock during the winter months and were greater than the limiting
levels during the remaining seasons; median bicarbonate concentrations also
were in violation of the limiting criteria for stock animals during the entire
year (California WQCB 1963). These characteristics would definitely reduce
the value of the stream as an agricultural supply even though median TDS concen-
trations (less than 2500 mg/1) were not at levels high enough to degrade the
creek for this use; only 7 percent of the samples from Hanging Woman Creek had
TDS concentrations in excess of 3000 mg/1.
This creek would also be a poor source of water for irrigation, as it had
a medium sodium hazard and a very high salinity hazard for this use (USDA 1954).
The waters in the creek would be designated as a borderline, Class II water
for this purpose (tables 15 and 16) due to the high SAR, sulfate, specific con-
ductance, and total dissolved solids levels. As noted by the EPA (1976), waters
with TDS concentrations greater than 2000 mg/1 "... can be used for tolerant
plants on permeable soils with careful management practices." These waters,
therefore, should probably not be applied to the salinity-sensitive and semi-
tolerant species listed in table 17, particularly during the May-July period.
Similarly, the high salinity levels of Hanging Woman Creek would be expected to
affect the aquatic biota, as 82 percent to 86 percent of the samples had TDS-
SC levels greater than 1350 mg/1 and 2000 ymhos/cm. Salinities in excess of
these levels might be judged to have detrimental influences on the freshwater
biota. Hanging Woman Creek, like many prairie streams in eastern Montana, might
be considered to have a poor class of water, principally on the basis of its
high TDS levels.
Hanging Woman Creek has been designated a B-D3 stream by the State of
Montana, butits waters, as noted above, would definitely not be suitable for
"drinking, culinary and food processing purposes" (Montana DHES, undated)
without the application of extensive treatment for the removal of total dis-
solved solids. In addition, the suitability of its waters for the "growth and
propagation of non-salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life" and for agri-
cultural supply might be questioned. Thus, although most of the water quality
parameters in samples from the creek, such as pH, DO, temperature, and fecal
coliforms, were in accord with its B-D3 designation, salinity would certainly
make inappropriate certain of the water-use descriptions associated with a B-D3
classification, given no accessory treatment. This is true of many streams in
eastern Montana. As a result, in order to more accurately describe such streams,
some supplementary designation should be applied where water uses are restricted
by high salinities but not by pollution inputs or other factors.
Miscellaneous constituent and trace element data are available for Hanging
Woman Creek as summarized in table 103. Median silica and T0C concentrations
were somewhat greater than the national average or median for surface waters,
but these constituents did not suggest pollution problems. The low T0C values
were in accord with the low BOD5 concentrations of the creek and also indicate
the absence of organic inputs to the stream. All of the tributaries to the
Tongue River, including Otter Creek, had median DO concentrations between 88
percent and 91 percent (tables 101 and 103) of saturation; such consistencies
in percentage of saturation among these creeks suggests the natural level of
214
TABLE 103. Sunmary
laneous
constituent and
mging Joman and Otter
Hanging
Woman Creek nea
- Birney
Ott. •
and
N
Miscellaneous
constituents anc
total recoverable
Mm Max
Med
N
Dissolved
Min
H
Med
"ieous
"■ and.
total recoverable
Mm Max Med
N
)issolved metals
Med
oo"
16
72 104
88
17
63 110 91
NH.-N
2
0.02 0.05
0.035
3
0.0 0.06 0.03
Si
18
6.7 22
16
17
2.1 1/
TOC
2
11 14
12.5
2
13 16 14.5
Al
3
0.9 6.4
2.0
3
0.0
.04
.02
3
.16 .78 .23
4
0.0
.50
.25
As
15
0.0 <.01
.002
2
0.0
0.001
■ .001
15
0.0 • .01 .001
(.006)
2
.001
.001
.001
B
4
.15 .39
.23
18
.12
.82
.28
4
.36 .58 .40
18
.12
.52
.45
Ba
3
.031
.040
.040
3
.02
.03
.02
Be
3
0.0
■ .005
1
<.003
0.01
Cd
19
<.001 0.02
.01
3
0.0
• .035
.035
(.001)
19
-.001 0.01 .01
4
0.0
• .05
.001
Cr
10
0.0 .014
.01
3
'.01
.02
(.006)
9
0.0 .09 0.0
4
0.0
.01
.01
Cu
19
■=.01 0.02
• .01
3
.003
0.004
■ .003
19
0.0 .11 .01
4
.002
.01
.005
Fe
19
.22 3.6
.66
18
0.0
1.5
.04
20
.15 2.9 .49
17
.01
.49
.05
Hg
16
0.0 .Dill
■ .0002
(.0004)
2
0.0
.0001
<.0001
15
0.0 -.001 '.0002
(.0008)
2
0.0
.0001
.0001
Li
3
.09
.10
.10
1
.15
-]
.13
.15
.13
Mn
18
.04 .39
.11
3
.02
.03
.02
18
.02 .36 .08
;
.02
.04
.04
Mo
3
• .004
0.005
• .005
1
.007
4
-.006
'.01
(.004)
Ni
3
'.008
0.01
'.008
4
'.014
• .010
Pb
12
<.01 0.10
3
■ .01
13
■ .01 o.io . io
4
• .014
'.010
Se
8
0.0 .002
.001
1
.001
8
0.0 .003 .001
1
.001
Sr
3
1.5 2.7
1.6
3
1.3
1.4
1.3
3
1.8 2.7 2.0
3
1.1
1.8
1.1
V
4
OO <.10
■=.10
3
• .005
4
• .10 • .10 .10
4
<.01
<.01
v. 01
Zn
14
-.01 0.02
0.01
3
0.0
.02
.01
14
0.04 0.01
4
0.0
0.11
.005
: Measurements are expressed in mg/1.
-.01, N«l; Bi, Ge, Sn, Ti. Zr: .02, N=l ; Ag:
0.01. M-l; Ni: 0.05. N=l .
Ti: <.01, N=l; Bi , Ge, Sn, Zr: <.02, N=l; Ag:
expressed as percentage of saturation.
.002, N=3; Co: ■ .02, N=3.
.002. N»3; Co: ■ .014, N= 1.
215
DO saturation that characterizes these streams. Like the TOC levels, ammonia
concentrations were also low, and they were not at levels high enough to in-
crease the stream's eutrophic potential or to be toxic to aquatic life. This
latter feature also applies to most of the trace elements with small TR or
dissolved concentrations. Of these constituents, only iron had its maximum
dissolved concentration in excess of the reference criteria for drinking water
(USDHEW 1962), public supply (USDI 1968), and aquatic life (table 19); this
was not the case, however, for its median dissolved concentrations, and only
17 percent of the samples from Hanging Woman Creek had dissolved iron in excess
of 0.3 mg/1. As a result, the trace elements did not significantly detract
from the quality of water in this stream.
Otter Creek
Otter Creek, another of the major Tongue River tributaries, flows in a
northerly direction before joining the Tongue near Ashland (USDI 1968). How-
ever, Otter Creek has all of its drainage in Montana. Data for the major para-
meters are summarized in table 104 for Otter Creek, and data for the trace
elements and miscellaneous constituents are presented in table 103.
The TR concentrations of trace elements of most Otter Creek samples did
not indicate great water quality problems. This would include, most notably,
ammonia, As, Be, Cd, Hg, Li, Mo, Ni , Se, and V; the dissolved concentrations
of these 10 constituents were also low or undetectable, as were the dissolved
levels of 9 other trace elements which had no TR information--Ag, Ba, Bi , Co,
Ga, Ge, Ti , Sn, and Zr. However, some of the trace elements had high median
or maximum TR levels. Silica, Al , B, Fe, Mn, and Sr were noticeable in this
regard, but also Cr, Cu, Pb, and Zn. Such high TR levels were probably asso-
ciated with suspended sediment because the dissolved concentrations of most of
these constituents were low and below their reference criteria; this would in-
clude B, Cr, Cu, Mn, and Pb. Silica and Sr concentrations did not indicate water
quality problems. Of the various trace elements, only Al and Fe had dissolved
concentrations in excess of certain reference criteria. The median and maxi-
mum idssolved levels of Al were greater than the recommendation of the EPA
(1973) in relation to aquatic life. In terms of iron, 18 percent of the sam-
ples from Otter Creek had dissolved concentrations in excess of the criteria
for drinking water (USDHEW 1962), surface water public supply (USEPA 1973,
USDI 1968), and aquatic life (USEPA 1973), although the median dissolved level
of this constituent was less than these values. In addition, one of the sam-
ples from Otter Creek analyzed for zinc demonstrated a dissolved concentration
in excess of its reference criteria for the aquatic biota (USEPA 1973). For
the most part, however, the trace elements do not appear to be at levels high
enough to consistently detract from most of the water uses from Otter Creek.
As suggested by the trace element data (table 103), the water quality in
Hanging Woman and Otter creeks was found to be similar, which might be expected
considering the proximity of their drainage areas (USDI 1968). Both of these
creeks had poor inverse relationships between median seasonal flows and TDS-SC
levels. In Hanging Woman Creek (table 102), the highest median TDS-SC levels
were obtained during the May-July period of greatest flow. In Otter Creek
(table 104), median TDS concentrations were closely equivalent through all
seasons regardless of median flows. For example, a maximum difference in
216
r»
0
CM
0
O
c
T
-o
CO
CM
0
CM
,
O
10 CO
cn
,_
0
CO
0
in
0
ON
^
«r
en
,_
^
O
c
•*o
O
00
0
VO
CM
on- — ■
0
cn
en
on
ro
in
■ 1
0
0
O
0
0
CO
ON
CM
ON
O
\o
CO
T
s
in
0
vO
cn
CM
CM
in
m
CO
m
CM
*r
lO
«£>
0
O
0
7
>*
m
in
0
O
0
r-
0
Cn
0
on
0
0
0
CTt
0
\o
O
0
0
CO
CO
UD
ID
O
c
00
co
^3"
to
0
O
=
»
in
u.
m
*
O
-
10
CM
-
in
.0
in
»
CO
u,
u,
m
in
in
CO
in
uo
ID
0
■o
O
C
CO
O
CO
CT>
in
OJ
en
id
on
CM
O
2:
*""
r~
CO
CM
CM
-"
"~
■""
"
m
CO
■""
l~~
ro
r"
lO
lO
T
"~
:-:
O
c
c
O
0
CO
in
m
0
K
0
vo
0
O
O
O
CO
vx:
L. (13
m
cn
on
0
CM
CO
O
cn
—■
a
O-S
CM
CO
CM
Cn
ON
<=r
e£
.c
S- c
O
0
0
CO
on
O
0
0
O
c
id
O
CM
0
2: z:
-X>
0
CO
CM
on
0
CO
c
=
»
yD
10
>x>
«
«d-
-
ID
■=*
-
m
m
in
u,
CM
uo
0
in
in
in
-
ID
«
O
0
ON
0
C
■0
O
Cn
CM
0
O
O
ON
ON
OJ
CO
cn
ID
CM
O
10
n
CM
z:
^r
O
CO
00
CM
co
-—
>—
CM
f^
en
"-
a>
**
CM
LTl
10
in
•"*
r—
0
C
c
>>
0
,__
^3-
ID
c
!-~*
0
1X5
en
O
0
c
CO
ID
1- 13
cn
CO
U3
CO
ID
ID
in
N^3
-O 21
CO
IX)
10
0
o>
S-
LU
IO
C
a; c
O
O
0
CM
O
0
c
c
<d-
O
0
0
0
£ 22
O
^T
O
CO
cr
0
C
<u
0
z
0
0
O
0
CM
■0
ID
*3-
CO
in
O
CO
m
CO
0
Cn
CM
CO
UD
ID
on
n
z
■""
■"
CO
CM
in
cd
m
CO
VO
^~
CO
CI
CM
>X)
l£>
m
■"
'"
0
c
<r
i-
O
CM
O
,^
O
to
ro
OJ x
ID
CO
0
O
O
0
0
00
0
0
O
0
_D ro
0
<X>
ro
0
en
lO
^O
O ZT
CO
en
C\J
on
U3
lO
0
c
O
lO
O
O
O
_
_
O
CO
0
0
CO
^O
aa
O
a
c
KD
O
ro
CO
rr
3 E
O
LO
CO
CM
CM
CM
r-
i*»
1
0
LT>
•—
C"~
n
CO
in
in
«3-
r_
0
0
0
?
<:
z
^
P-
ID
^
V£>
CM
CM
10
-
ro
<*o
iD
ID
iD
IO
<X3
lO
lc
ID
^x;
ID
ID
VO
£X
O
t/1
I_
0
ce:
0
aj
X
O
O
0
0
t_>
a>
X
<
0
<
O
LJ_
0.
l/t
1—
h-
*"
Q
CO
L±_
0
2:
=
^
LTt
X
l/N
CJ
-"
217
median TDS between seasons of only 8 percent was obtained in Otter Creek, with
only a 2 percent difference in median TDS between the low- and high-flow periods
(August-October to March-April); this contrasts with the 96-percent and 87-
percent values obtained for the Yellowstone River near Miles City. Water samples
from Otter Creek also had high TDS-SC levels, along with a sodium sulfate com-
position that characterizes most of the lowland streams in eastern Montana.
The waters in Otter Creek were extremely hard and were usually slightly to
moderatley saline. TDS concentrations and SC levels were possibly somewhat
higher in Otter than in Hanging Woman Creek during most seasons, with annual
median TDS and SC values in the first stream (2300 mg/1 and 2937 umhos/cm) about
1.11 and 1.06 times greater than the annual medians in Hanging Woman Creek. TDS
concentrations in Otter Creek were between 3.33 times in the winter and 5.47
times during May-July greater than those in Tongue River near Birney. Although
the tributary flows were comparatively low, the high TDS concentrations of
these two creeks indicate a potential salinity loading to the Tongue mainstem
via these sources, corresponding to the downstream increase of TDS in the Tongue
below the dam.
The possible effect of Hanging Woman and Otter creeks towards increasing
TDS levels in the Tongue River below the dam can be shown in table 105.
TABLE 105. Effects of Hanging Woman and Otter creeks towards increasing TDS
levels in the Tongue River below the dam.
Hanging
and Otte
cfs
Flow
Woman
r creeks
mg/1
TDSL
Tongue
Ashland
mg/1
TDS
River from
to Brandenburg
d
Increase
Tongue
Ashland
mg/1
TDS
River from .
to Brandenburg
d
Increase
Aug-Oct
Nov-Feb
March-April
May-July
3
7
15.6
13
2122
2111
2177
2438
563
777
644
446
3.7%
8.4%
15.2%
6.7%
632
748
773
564
16.4%
4.3%
38.3%
34.9%
Annual
38.6
2249
531
8.4%
640
30.6%
^Calculated.
Observed.
jFlow weighted.
Percentage increase in TDS over that in the Birney reach (table 90).
As indicated by the above loading calculations, these two tributaries apparently
have an influence on the salinity levels of the Tongue River, and they may be
able to increase the median TDS concentrations of the mainstem about 3.7 percent
to 15.2 percent, depending upon season. The annual increase in median TDS due
to these two streams would be nearly 8.4 percent. However, the individual daily
effects from these creeks could be greater or less than these values depending
upon the specific flow-TDS relationships of the Tongue and its tributaries at
that particular time. Except during the winter, mainstem TDS increases attri-
butable to these two creeks were significantly less than the observed increases
210
from the Birney reach to the Ashland-Brandenburg segment of the Tongue. TDS
inputs from Otter and Hanging Woman creeks would account for only about 27
percent of the median yearly downstream increase in mainstem salinity below
the reservoir. As a result, other features were also apparently contributing
to this increase in salt concentrations in the Tongue River. Such features
could include, as examples, inputs of other saline tributaries below the dam
(i.e., the minor tributaries, such as Cook Creek, summarized in table 100, and
others), irrigation diversions and evaporation with the subsequent inputs of
saltier return flows, accrual of lowland groundwater with high TDS concentra-
tions, and saline seep (Montana DHES 1975).
The chemical composition of water in Otter Creek was found to be quite
similar to that in Hanging Woman Creek. In both cases, sodium and sulfate
were the dominant ions, producing high SAR values and a medium sodium hazard
for irrigation. Fluoride concentrations in Otter Creek were less than those
in Hanging Woman Creek, but fluorides in the first stream were also higher than
the values typical of most streams in the middle-lower Yellowstone Basin (gen-
erally less than 0.7 mg/1). However, fluoride levels were not high enough to
detract from water uses. Magnesium-calcium and bicarbonate were the secondary
ionic constituents of Otter Creek, and fluoride, chloride, and potassium were
insignificant components. In both streams, calcium concentrations were less
than the magnesium levels; this feature was greatest in Otter Creek. Such low
Ca:Mg ratios suggest dolomitic formations in the middle Tongue River Basin, in
accord with the latitudinal-geographic similarity and orientation of the Otter
Creek drainage in relation to other drainages east of the Bighorn River that
also had high magnesium concentrations (e.g., Tullock, Sarpy, Armells, and lower
Rosebud creeks). The Ca:Mg ratios generally declined downstream in the Tongue
River in response to these tributary inputs as follows (based on the annual
median Ca and Mg concentrations: Decker reach, 1.51; Birney reach, 1.42; Ash-
land-to-Brandenburg, 1.31; and the Miles City reach, 1.43.
Salinity and the high concentrations of particular ionic constituents ap-
peared to be the major factors detracting from water quality in Otter Creek;
none of the remaining parameters and trace elements (table 103) appeared to
have concentrations high enough to consistently alter the creek's quality.
Sample pH levels from the stream did not suggest water pollution problems.
The pH and DO levels of the stream and the fecal col i form concentrations were
consistently in accord with Montana's requirements for a B-D3 water. With the
high DO concentrations (the median value was within 9 percent of saturation)
and the low BOD5, TOC, and fecal levels, Otter Creek was apparently free from
significant organic-municipal inputs.
In addition, TSS-turbidity levels did not lower the water quality in the
creek. The levels of these variables in the Otter Creek samples were generally
less than those obtained from Hanging Woman Creek, and the annual median TSS
concentration, 14 mg/1, would suggest an excellent fishery in Otter Creek (Euro-
pean Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission 1965), given no other limiting factors.
Similarly, the low phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations indicate no eutrophy
problems in Otter Creek. Median phosphorus concentrations were less than its
reference level for eutrophy during all seasons; with the exception of a winter
concentrational peak, this was also true of nitrogen. Only 7 percent of the
samples collected from Otter Creek would be expected to have both phosphorus
and nitrogen in excess of their reference levels, and the bulk of these samples
would be collected during the less critical winter period. As a result, Otter
Creek, like most streams in the Yellowstone Basin, does not appear to be eutro-
phic at present.
219
Although measurements of many of the major parameters indicate excellent
water quality (table 103), the water in Otter Creek is unfit for most, if not
all, beneficial uses due to salinity. Water-use limitations and associated
rationale would be the same as those for Hanging Woman Creek. This would nec-
essitate eliminating the stream as a suitable source of water for public supply
due to its high TDS, sulfate, and hardness levels. Its very high salinity haz-
ard makes it unsuitable for irrigation (it is a Class II to borderline Class III
water for this use), along with its high sulfate concentrations, in excess of
limiting levels for stock animals. Also, Otter Creek would provide a poor en-
vironment for the freshwater aquatic biota, as 93 percent of the Otter samples
had TDS concentrations in excess of 1350 mg/1 and 90 percent of the samples had
SC levels in excess of 2000 ymhos/cm. The waters in Otter Creek therefore has
a poor quality for most beneficial applications.
Pumpkin Creek
Pumpkin Creek is the third major tributary to the Tongue River. It is the
most northern of these streams and has a rather extensive drainage area located
entirely within Montana. It also flows in a northerly direction before joining
the mainstem about 15 miles south of Miles City. Water quality and grab sample
flow data for Pumpkin Creek are summarized in tables 106 and 107.
Pumpkin Creek can be characterized by its wide fluctuations in flow, ranging
from zero on numerous occasions to daily flows approaching 900 cfs , and instanta-
neous flows as high as 1660 cfs (USDI 1966-1974b). Zero discharges and low
flow values were usually observed from summer to early winter, and the maximum
discharges were usually observed during the late winter and spring. However,
extremely high flows also occurred during other periods of the year (USDI 1966-
1974b). High flows were most consistently obtained between February and mid-
July.
Pumpkin Creek is an intermittent stream which measured zero flow on 25 per-
percent of the days monitored by the USGS. Although Pumpkin Creek is inter-
mittent, its average annual flows were the same or greater than those in Hanging
Woman and Otter creeks. Discharge in Pumpkin Creek averaged 14.3 cfs in water
year 1973 and 4.5 cfs in water year 1974; this compares to average flows during
these years of 5.2 cfs to 7.8 cfs in the other major tributaries (USDI 1966-
1974a). The similarity in mean flows between intermittent and perennial streams
of the Tongue River drainage was due to the weighting effect of the large slugs
of water that can develop in Pumpkin Creek. The median annual flow of Pumpkin
Creek (0.7 cfs) (tables 106 and 107) are considerably less than the median
annual flows of Otter (5.2 cfs) and Hanging Woman (3.7 cfs) creeks (tables 102
and 104).
Water quality data for Pumpkin Creek near its mouth (close to Miles City)
are available from the state WQB and from the USGS. However, the state WQB data
are not very extensive, and the USGS initiated its water quality sampling pro-
gram on Pumpkin Creek later than it did on the other streams in the Tongue River
drainage. As a result, a great deal of chemical data are not yet available.
Data for Pumpkin Creek near Miles City were inadequate for the seasonal
classifications applied to Hanging Woman and Otter creeks; but the information
was sufficient for a flow-based classification (tables 106 and 107). In
220
CO O
Li->
CO CM
-o
LO CM CO
00 LO O
CM
LOLOOOCMLOCOLOLOCOi — O
QJ
LO
. . OO
orxvo
O
O CO 1 — CTl
• O CM CO • • • •
21
CM
00 00 r—
1 — 1— CO
•—
LO CTl
LO ^ CO 1 — 00^3-COCMLOLOOOO
-Q
-X. 4->
lo en 0
CO 0
r~~
O
O O LO r-
(V t- X
O
• *a- 0
CM O CO
CM O
r-lONO
• r-~ 0 «3- LO *d- ^J-
<V <_) ro
"vf
O • CM
r~» cm 00
CM
r— O
^■NNNN
CM 1— "3" 1 — CM • • •
s- 2:
CM
CMOO'*
CO CM 1—
1 —
A LO
r— r— ^d- r^ .—
r— LO CO CM 1 — OOO
O 00
OJ
C 1 —
1 —
0
<3-
CM 1—
-^ 2: c
0
0 lo r--.
00
<*
O
• ■— CO
*d- O 1— CD O
CL T-
• • <a-
00 ^ 1—
O • 1— LO •
. CO O LO • • • •
E s- 2:
1 —
O LO CM
r— r— r—
r-^
CO 0
1 LO LO CM LO
1 — I^LOLOCOOOO
3 (O
O- QJ
C
==
r~-
r-» r~- r^-.
r^ r~~ r^
LO
LO LO
r^-i — iflN^^jrNior^MnNr-v
lo
LO O
CTl CM
CO
O O CO CO
■O
C\J
en ^a- co
CM
CO
CO 0
• CM r» CM O LO 0 O
QJ
r»» «=J- 0
O
• CM
r^ CO CTl 00 CM
^j- r-» cti co • • • •
2:
O
CO CO ro
CM r— CM
■—
CM ■=!-
LO LO CO LO 1—
r— <3" CO 1— CTlOOO
rO
>>
CO CM uo
CO
^f
O
CD
CT,^.
CM O LO LO
CD t- X
r^
• LO "vT
lo
•
■* 0
• CM 1 — CO LO CTl O
O) O T>
CM • LO
O LO ■—
CM
• CM
1— CTi CO CO CO
Lo 00 r^ lo cm • • •
s- 5:
O
CM 00 CO
CO ■ — "3"
1 —
LO 1—
co to •* r-v r-
1— LO«3-i— 1— OOO
O 00
QJ
C 1—
LO
O r^
LO >vf
-* 2: c
O
1— CM 1 —
00
CO
CM
CTl LO
r— 1— LO O "=T CO O O
Q. ■!-
• • Ol
LO 1 —
CO LO CO CM 0
• CO CO CM • • • •
E S- 2!
O
r— CO 1—
r— LO 1—
CTl
CM O
LO CO CM CO 1 —
r^cocor-.LOOOO
3 rO
CL, Ol
C
Z
CO
00 00 CO
rvtniv
CO 1 — LO
NrNrNr-.^NrvNNrxtrnDio
, ,
0
«— »r^ lo 0
lo *d-
CO
1— O
LO O 1 — 1 —
-O
O • CO «d"
«d" CTl LO
CM Ol
CO
>=J- CO CTl LO
• CO CM LO O LO O O
OJ
«tf- >=t- • 00
1 — CO
CM •
LO LO CO O 1
1 — r^ r-» 1 — • • • •
^ 2:
OJ
"O QJ
0
r— 00 LO
>■ LO LO LO
^--cn
CO O
1— CM 1— r— 1
r— LO LO CO O O O V
C S-
ro (_> CD
en 0 0
LO
r-^
O O
<3- O LO r—
S- X
CM
• lo r-^
O
LO 1 — CTl LO
■0*0 OO
-*i c 0 re
r~- • lo
CO 0
0
LO CO CO ■— 1
CO CM LO r-~ LO 1 • •
(U-r- JOZ
O
1— 00 10
1X3 LO 1 —
>* O
1 — «3" CM 1 — 1
1 — CTl 1 — CO 1 — 1 OO
QJ -i<£ 1 —
S- Q. O
O E =-
3
en
000
LO
«d"
CO 1 —
E D_ S- C
0
• CM O
LO O
O
CTl 00 1 — LO
co co cm r>«. 0 OO
•1- ro ■!-
cm • **
r-.
CO 1 — CO LO 1
• ^■■^s -1 • •
-^ QJ QJ 2:
0
r— CO LO
^" LO CM
CTl
CM O
1 — CM 1 — CTl 1
CTl LO LO CM O 1 O V
CLr— C
E -4->
3 +J
O- -r-
_l
2T
ro
^- >* CO
CO CM CO
«3-«3-CMCOCOCOCOO
cococococoi — *d-«*
2
CL
JD
co
O
E
CO S- CO
O
or 0 <=*-
rjj XU
O 3 CO
O
O O
ro CT.3I rO
<0<Oi-
La-
r— CLCO
1 — 1 — i —
O
CO U-
O SI r— Z ^
C/1II-1/1UU.ZD.
1 — 1 — CO
221
TABLE 107. Summary of the miscellaneous constituent and trace element con-
centrations measured in the Pumpkin Creek drainage (mg/1).
Miscellaneous
Constituents and
Total Recoverable
Metals
Dissolved Metals3
N
Min
Max
Med
NH3-N
Si
2
0.02
0.04
0.03
1
--
--
8.4
TOC
2
10
30
20
Ag
<.002
Al
0.03
As
6
<.001
0.004
<.01
B
8
<.10
0.40
0.37
0.34
Ba
0.09
Be
<.003
Bi
<.013
Cd
16
<.001
<.01
<.001
0.0
Co
<.013
Cr
< .013
Cu
16
<.01
0.04
<.01
0.01
Fe
16
<.04
13
0.34
0.07
Ga
<.006
Ge
<.02
Hg
9
< . 0002
0.0026
<.001
Li
0.04
Mn
16
.01
.36
.07
0.01
Mo
<.01
Ni
<.013
Pb
5
<.01
0.05
<.05
< .013
Sn
< .013
Sr
4
1.3
3.7
1.6
1.1
Ti
<.009
V
4
<.10
<.10
<.10
<.013
Zn
16
<.01
0.08
0.01
0.0
Zr
<.030
N = 1 in all cases
222
addition, some water quality information was collected by the state WQB from
the upper reaches of Pumpkin Creek near Volborg (USDI 1968), and these data
have also been included in tables 106 and 107. The trace element and miscel-
laneous constituent data from all reaches were combined for the statistical
analyses; this information is also presented in tables 106 and 107.
Pumpkin Creek can also be characterized by its high TDS concentrations
and its distinct sodium sulfate water in all reaches during all seasons. The
upper reach of Pumpkin Creek also had greater magnesium concentrations than
calcium, although this relationship became much less noticeable near the stream's
mouth. Fluoride, chloride, and potassium were insignificant constituents of
the Pumpkin Creek samples, and magnesium-calcium and bicarbonate were the secon-
dary cations and anion. TDS concentrations were highest in the upper reach of
Pumpkin Creek near Volborg; they declined to the creek's mouth, showing a down-
stream improvement in water quality, particularly during high-flow periods.
The waters in Pumpkin Creek were moderately saline in the upper reach,
slightly saline in the lower reach at low flows, and non-saline downstream
about 40 percent of the time during the high-flow periods. The waters, how-
ever, were very hard in most cases. Annual median TDS-SC levels in Pumpkin
Creek near Miles City (1931 mg/1 and 2564 umhos/cm) were slightly less than the
median values obtained in Hanging Woman and Otter creeks. TDS-SC levels were
about 3.4 times and 3.0 times greater than the annual median levels of the
Tongue River near Miles City (table 92). But the effect of Pumpkin Creek on
the salinity levels of the mainstem near Miles City is slight. For example,
at the median flows of the Tongue River near Miles City and lower Pumpkin
Creek (about 0.7 cfs), this tributary would increase the annual median TDS
level of the mainstem only about 0.4 percent.
Median phosphorus and nitrogen (including ammonia-N) concentrations were
low in Pumpkin Creek and below the reference levels that indicate eutrophy.
Only 18 percent of the samples from the stream had phosphorus in excess of the
reference criteria, 12 percent had excessive nitrogen, and 6 percent had both
phosphorus and nitrogen in excess of the reference criteria. With the exception
of salinity (TDS-SC) levels and some of the dissolved constituents, the remain-
ing major parameters did not suggest water quality problems. Pumpkin Creek
has been designated a B-D3 stream by the State of Montana. Sample pH values,
although high in correspondence to the high alkal ini ties , were in accord with
the criteria of a B-D3 classification. Values of pH were lowest at the Miles
City station during the high-flow regimes when alkalinities were also low. The
DO concentrations of the creek and the median fecal col i form counts were also
in accord with the standards for a B-D3 stream; however, high fecal concentra-
tions were obtained in occasional samples (15 percent) that exceeded the state
recommendations for grab samples (Montana DHES, undated) and the NTAC (1968)
permissible criteria for a surface water public supply. B0D5 values were also
low in Pumpkin Creek, particularly during low flows, which indicates that no
organic pollution reaches the stream. The slightly higher B0D5 concentrations
during the high-flow periods, along with the above average T0C levels, indicate
inputs of some organic material during this phase of the hydrologic cycle, but
these somewhat higher BOD5 concentrations were most likely derived from natural
sources, such as organic pickup in association with the overland flow that de-
velops during these runoff events.
223
TSS-turbidity levels were greatest in the lower reach and during the per-
iods of high flow, this has been observed on many streams in the Yellowstone
Basin. At low flows, TSS concentrations and turbidity values would not be at
levels high enough to significantly degrade the quality of the creek's water.
At high flows, TSS and turbidity values were at sufficient levels to detract
from the better quality of water characteristic of the stream at this time due
to lower salinities. Turbidity during high flows would generally preclude the
use of the stream as a public supply (NTAC recommendation, table 9), and the
median values of turbidity and TSS during runoff events (tables 106 and 107)
could adversely affect the aquatic biota. But on a yearly basis, the annual
median TSS and turbidity values of Pumpkin Creek (29.3 mg/1 and 15 JTU) would
indicate a good fishery (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission 1965).
As a result, salinity is the major detractor from the water quality in this
stream, particularly in an upstream direction.
Pumpkin Creek would provide a poor source of water for public and domestic
supply and throughout the entire year in all reaches because of its high TDS
levels. Only 12 percent of the samples had TDS concentrations below 500 mg/1,
and all of these were obtained at high flows (29 percent of the runoff collec-
tions). The high levels of sulfate and the extremely hard nature of the water
in Pumpkin Creek would further preclude domestic use. Only 12 percent of the
samples, all of which were collected at high flows, had sulfate concentrations
less than 250 mg/1, and 88 percent of the samples had \jery hard waters.
Pumpkin Creek would provide a poor source of water for stock; this would
be most apparent in the upper reach near Volborg where the waters would be
classified as unfit for most farm animals (Seghetti 1951). According to the
EPA (1973), waters in upper Pumpkin Creek would be "permissible for livestock,
(but) unacceptable for poultry and lactating animals" (USEPA 1973), and the
TDS concentrations would be above the salinity threshold level for pigs (McKee
and Wolf 1974). The waters in the lower reach of Pumpkin Creek were somewhat
better for this use and applicable to most stock animals (tables 10-14).
According to Seghetti (1951), the lower section of the stream can be classified
as fair during low flows to good during high flows for agricultural supply.
However, concentrations of individual ions would further delimit the value of
this water as a source for stock. In upper Pumpkin Creek, sulfate concentra-
tions were well above the limiting levels for stock, with sodium and magnesium
slightly in excess of the proposed thresholds above which physiological effects
may occur in consuming animals. In the lower reach, sulfate concentrations
were also in excess of the limiting levels at low flows; they were greater than
the threshold value for a large percentage of the time during the high-flow
period. Consequently, the waters in Pumpkin Creek may be considered poor for
most beneficial uses.
Samples from Pumpkin Creek indicate that it has a very high salinity haz-
ard for irrigation in its upper reach and also in its lower reach during low
flows. In addition, the upper reach and the lower reach of Pumpkin Creek at
low flows would also have a high-to-very high sodium hazard for irrigation
due to the sodic nature of the water and the high SAR values. Because of this
latter feature, Pumpkin Creek would be less suitable as a source of water for
irrigation at low flows than Hanging Woman or Otter creeks, which have lower
sodium hazards.
224
Low discharges may preclude the use of Pumpkin Creek for irrigation through
a large part of the year, judging from the fact that its flows were less than
1.0 cfs on about 62 percent of the days monitored by the USGS (USDI 1966-1974a).
With such a high proportion of low-flow days, Pumpkin Creek would have a poor
class of water for a major part of the year. Nevertheless, about 3600 acres of
land are irrigated from Pumpkin Creek (USDI 1974), but this usually occurs
during the high-flow periods when water quantity and quality is greater.
Waters in the upstream reach would probably be unacceptable for irrigation
due to its extremely high TDS-SC and sulfate levels. The concentrations of
these variables generally exceeded the minimum limits prescribed for a Class
III water, and the TDS concentrations were greater than the maximum level listed
by the EPA (1976) for application to tolerant plants. The best water quality
for irrigation develops in Pumpkin Creek at high flows, which occur over about
38 percent of the year. It would seem that the lower TDS-SC and sulfate concen-
trations downstream near Miles City at low flows would indicate a Class II water
at these times, but the lower reach probably would retain its Class III water
at low flows due to the high SAR values (tables 106 and 107). The median SAR,
sulfate, and TDS-SC values indicate that the water is more appropriately Class
II also, but water with TDS concentrations between 1000 mg/1 and 2000 mg/1
"may have adverse effects on many crops and requires careful management prac-
tices" (USEPA 1976). Careful management practices would therefore be necessary
in the use of this water for irrigation, even though it would be applicable to
a wider variety of crop and forage species as a result of its lower salinities.
Trace element levels in Pumpkin Creek did not generally suggest water
quality problems (tables 106 and 107); TR concentrations of most constituents
were typically below the reference criteria. This includes Si (concentrations
were below the national average), NH3-N (at non-toxic levels), As, B, Cd, Cu,
Pb, Sr, V, and Zn. Almost all of these constituents had low dissolved concen-
trations. Although based on only one sample analysis, low dissolved concentra-
tions eliminate the following trace elements as potential causes of water qual-
ity problems: Ag, Al , Ba, Be, Bi , Co, Cr, Ga, Ge, Li, Mo, Ni , Sn, Ti , and Zr.
Only Fe and Mn had TR concentrations high enough to exceed water quality cri-
teria; the dissolved levels of Fe and Mn were well below the reference criteria
for water use. Additional analyses are necessary in order to adequately judge
the potential effects of TR and dissolved concentrations of trace elements in
Pumpkin Creek.
POWDER RIVER DRAINAGE
Powder River Mainstem
The Powder River is the most eastern of the major tributaries that join
the Yellowstone River in Montana. Its headwaters are on the eastern slopes of
the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming; it has an extensive reach in Wyoming and an
extensive prairie reach and drainage in Montana before it joins the Yellowstone
near Terry (USDI 1968). Poor water quality might be expected in the Powder
River due to its long length, providing opportunities for accessory inputs.
On the basis of average annual discharge, the Powder River is about 1.44
times larger than the Tongue River, but only 16 percent as large as the Bighorn
River (USDI 1974). However, on certain days, flows in the Tongue River exceed
225
those in the Powder. The Powder River has an average annual discharge equal
to about 5 percent of that in the Yellowstone River at Miles City. As a re-
sult, the Powder could have a significant effect on mainstem quality, particu-
larly if it has significantly poorer quality than the lower Yellowstone. How-
ever, very little water quality information is available on the Powder River.
Since 1965, the USGS has sporadically sampled two stations on an upper reach
of the Powder River above Broadus (table 3), and the USGS has initiated a
monthly sampling program on this segment near Moorhead and at a downstream
station near its mouth close to Locate. Also, the state WQB has collected
several samples from the river at various locations along its length in Montana.
The available USGS data and the state WQB data were combined to represent two
segments of the stream--an upper reach from near Broadus to Moorhead close to
the Montana-Wyoming border, and a lower reach below Broadus from near Locate
to near Terry. With this combination of data, water quality information were
sufficient for a seasonal classification of the two segments as summarized in
tables 108 and 109.
Of the major streams in the Yellowstone River Basin, the Powder River is
unusual to have a definite sodium sulfate water with high TDS-SC levels, even
in its upper Montana segment. Many of the other large streams in the Yellow-
stone Basin have calcium bicarbonate water, the Clarks Fork and Tongue rivers
have calcium-sodium bicarbonate water, and the Bighorn River has calcium-sodium
sulfate water.
The major tributaries to the Yellowstone above Billings, including the
Clarks Fork River, usually have TDS-SC levels less than 300 mg/1 and 400 umhos/cm
in the upper reaches, and TDS-SC levels typically less than 500 mg/1 and 600
umhos/cm near their mouths (Karp et al . 1976a). The major streams below Billings
(the Little Bighorn, Bighorn, and Tongue rivers) have SC levels ranging between
350 and 950 umhos/cm in the upper reaches, depending upon season and the parti-
cular stream, and between 550 and 1025 umhos/cm in the lower segments. TDS
concentrations in these rivers range between 200 and 625 mg/1 in the upper seg-
ments and between 300 and 700 mg/1 in the lower sections of the streams, depen-
ding upon season and drainage. The TDS-SC levels of the Powder were signifi-
cantly greater than these values; TDS levels varied between 950 and 1650 mg/1,
and SC levels between 1260 and 2175 ymhos/cm. The Powder River near its mouth
had median TDS levels 2.74 to 4.18 times greater, and SC levels 2.30 to 3.62
times greater than those of the Yellowstone River near Miles City, depending
upon reach and season.
Evidence of the greatest differences between the Powder and Yellowstone
rivers was obtained during the low-flow August-October period and the May-July
runoff period of the year. The high TDS concentrations of this major Yellow-
stone tributary may be related to its long length from its headwaters in
Wyoming to its mouth in Montana. The Bighorn River, which also has an exten-
sive drainage system, also had comparatively high TDS levels (table 48).
Flow patterns in both reaches of the Powder River (tables 108 and 109)
were generally similar to those of the other large streams in eastern Montana.
Flow was low in the late summer-early fall. Peak flows occurred during the
May-July period due to runoff from the river's mountainous headwaters. Median
seasonal flows consistently increased from the summer low through the winter
and spring months to the May-July maximum, and a secondary peak in flow became
226
o
^
in
TJ
o
o
CO
*j-
o
o
cn
lO
in
CM
cn
cn
CM
0>
CO
in
CM
cn
in
o
CO
m
CO
£
00
o
ID
o
o
00
o
o
en
O
CM
o
CD
CM
o
cn
CO
CO
o
«»
CO
o
O
CO
o
5n X
CO
CM
o
m
O
o
o
CM
o
CO
CM
cn
o
o
O
ID
cn
cn
m
en
CM
cn
o
o
00
ID
cn
O
3 S
00
C\J
CO
00
cn
Cn
«?
CM
ID
^r
ID
CD
O
*d
>>
CO
2: c
lO
O
^r
o
CM
CM
CO
\o
CO
ID
CO
O
o
o
00
vd
00
o
CM
CM
cn
oo
in
CT>
E
**
cn
in
<n
*3-
in
in
in
o
cn
o
CM
<3-
O
o
o
*3-
in
cn
00
00
in
o
O
«3-
o
CD
T3
o
00
cn
o
cn
o
o
o
o
*r
CO
o
O
ID
*3-
9)
VO
o
O
o
o
UD
in
in
CM
m
CM
s:
ID
to
•**
■""
"""
CO
CM
"""
CO
r~
r_
in
in
CM
ID
in
CM
CM
VD
■""
O
CD
o
O
o
o
in
o
O
o
in
•w- X
co
CO
o
o
o
CO
cn
o
O
cn
in
O
o
in
S- 13
Cn
o
co
cn
CM
o
CO
■3-
CM
00
O.S
00
CM
in
in
CO
in
00
O
o
<c
-r
UJ
o
o
CM
s- c
o
in
o
in
o
CO
CO
o
O
CM
o
«3-
*3-
o
00
«3-
in
VD
o
s s;
o
O
CO
vo
CM
CM
in
CM
CM
in
in
O
o
o
CO
CO
en
en
m
CM
Cn
in
cn
<3>
cn
00
cn
cn
cn
en
o
cn
CO
■a
o
en
«d-
in
O
o
^r
Cn
o
o
<3-
o
aj
o
CO
in
O
o
CO
in
in
<d-
VD
s:
CO
o
^
CM
*—
in
*—
r~
CO
CM
•—
in
in
CM
m
*3"
CO
CM
in
■""
O
o
CD
>^
™
o
o
o
in
«=r
CM
13 X
o
ID
o
o
o
o
o
O
CO
O
o
O
ID
00
i- ro
CO
o
CM
in
CM
o
in
ID
-Q 21
00
00
in
^
CO
O
o
o
O)
IJ-
t-
co
CO
,_
ai c
o
in
«3-
o
cn
o
CO
o
-O. N-
CO
o
id
cn
in
o
00
ID
CO
o
in
in
o
■3-
ID
CO
^r
CM
O
o
o
>
o
^
ID
,—
cn
o
CM
CM
00
CM
_
cr\
cn
00
ID
o
CO
CM
CM
t-»
Cn
CM
CD
o
z
CM
in
CM
c*-
O
CD
CO
■a
cn
m
CO
CD
o
o
O
o
o
o
aj
o
«3-
l£>
o
CO
CM
ID
CO CM
s:
•~
■""
00
CM
CO
■""
cn
CM
CM
r_
^
r~-
CM
CO
■3"
CM
CM
00
cn —
ci-
o
o
t
ai
o
O
ID
o
o
o
.O X
ID
o
00
o
O
00
CM
o
<3"
m
o
in
en
O TJ
00
o
o
CT>
O
o
cr*
*T
CM
CO
*j 5:
co
CM
rr
CO
Cn
*T
in
CM
o
o
o
*->
in
o
O
l/l C
O
CM
in
CO
CD
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
in
cn
cn
CO
cn
tn
ens:
in
O
o
«3"
in
CO
CM
o
o
CD
3
■i
00
cn
cn
CO
00
o
00
CM
in
in
CO
CM
o
o
CM
ID
CO
CM
m
ID
z
Q.
JD
CO
a
or
o
*3-
aj
3:
<_>
o
3
o
o
<_>
cn
X
*o
<r
<_>
<l
o
u-
o.
■"
*~
a
CO
u.
t_>
Z
•""
z
a.
</>
x
l_
OO
(_>
u.
z
a.
Ill
those in the Powder. The Powder River has an average annual discharge equal
to about 5 percent of that in the Yellowstone River at Miles City. As a re-
sult, the Powder could have a significant effect on mainstem quality, particu-
larly if it has significantly poorer quality than the lower Yellowstone. How-
ever, very little water quality information is available on the Powder River.
Since 1965, the USGS has sporadically sampled two stations on an upper reach
of the Powder River above Broadus (table 3), and the USGS has initiated a
monthly sampling program on this segment near Moorhead and at a downstream
station near its mouth close to Locate. Also, the state WQB has collected
several samples from the river at various locations along its length in Montana.
The available USGS data and the state WQB data were combined to represent two
segments of the stream—an upper reach from near Broadus to Moorhead close to
the Montana-Wyoming border, and a lower reach below Broadus from near Locate
to near Terry. With this combination of data, water quality information were
sufficient for a seasonal classification of the two segments as summarized in
tables 108 and 109.
Of the major streams in the Yellowstone River Basin, the Powder River is
unusual to have a definite sodium sulfate water with high TDS-SC levels, even
in its upper Montana segment. Many of the other large streams in the Yellow-
stone Basin have calcium bicarbonate water, the CI arks Fork and Tongue rivers
have calcium-sodium bicarbonate water, and the Bighorn River has calcium-sodium
sulfate water.
The major tributaries to the Yellowstone above Billings, including the
CI arks Fork River, usually have TDS-SC levels less than 300 mg/1 and 400 ymhos/cm
in the upper reaches, and TDS-SC levels typically less than 500 mg/1 and 600
ymhos/cm near their mouths (Karp et al . 1976a). The major streams below Billings
(the Little Bighorn, Bighorn, and Tongue rivers) have SC levels ranging between
350 and 950 ymhos/cm in the upper reaches, depending upon season and the parti-
cular stream, and between 550 and 1025 ymhos/cm in the lower segments. TDS
concentrations in these rivers range between 200 and 625 mg/1 in the upper seg-
ments and between 300 and 700 mg/1 in the lower sections of the streams, depen-
ding upon season and drainage. The TDS-SC levels of the Powder were signifi-
cantly greater than these values; TDS levels varied between 950 and 1650 mg/1,
and SC levels between 1260 and 2175 ymhos/cm. The Powder River near its mouth
had median TDS levels 2.74 to 4.18 times greater, and SC levels 2.30 to 3.62
times greater than those of the Yellowstone River near Miles City, depending
upon reach and season.
Evidence of the greatest differences between the Powder and Yellowstone
rivers was obtained during the low-flow August-October period and the May-July
runoff period of the year. The high TDS concentrations of this major Yellow-
stone tributary may be related to its long length from its headwaters in
Wyoming to its mouth in Montana. The Bighorn River, which also has an exten-
sive drainage system, also had comparatively high TDS levels (table 48).
Flow patterns in both reaches of the Powder River (tables 108 and 109)
were generally similar to those of the other large streams in eastern Montana.
Flow was low in the late summer-early fall. Peak flows occurred during the
May-July period due to runoff from the river's mountainous headwaters. Median
seasonal flows consistently increased from the summer low through the winter
and spring months to the May-July maximum, and a secondary peak in flow became
226
O
"3-
-o
0
0
00
*r
O
0
cn
10
CNJ
on
cn
CM
CO
uo
CM
CT>
O
m
CO
>£>
CO
ro
in
2:
CO
0
li3
O
0
CO
0
O
cn
0
CM
O
O
CM
CO
O
OI
co
O
"•3-
0
O
CO
CD
>, X
CO
O
in
O
O
O
CNI
0
<T>
0
O
0
m
en
cn
10
O*
en
CO
0
CNJ
0
CO
U3
en
O
3 2:
CO
CNJ
CM
00
00
Cn
cn
«3
in
CM
in
«r
vo
0
0
CM
~"3
>>
CO
2: c
m
0
^3"
O
CO
vo
CO
lO
CO
0
0
O
CO
C\J
IO
CO
CM
O
CM
cn
CO
cn
IE
«J-
cn
"
vj=>
*T
"
CM
in
"
in
CO
"
a»
CM
0
0
O
LO
^
«
«3-
«3-
^
in
0
0
in
-3"
*T
in
a\
CO
CO
0
0
0
O
■0
0
00
Cn
0
en
O
0
0
0
*j-
CM
CO
0
O
in
01
ID
0
O
O
O
<X>
10
10
CM
2:
ID
co
^
r~
r"
CO
CM
r~
CO
'""
"~
LT>
in
CM
in
in
CNJ
CNJ
in
l—
0
0
O
O
0
0
in
0
O
O
in
0
0
O
CO
cn
O
0
cn
CNJ
0
O
0
CO
cn
CM
0
CO
*T
C\J
CT»
<T
CO
0-2:
CO
CM
<X>
in
00
C\J
CNJ
CO
0
0
■a
.c
u
0
0
s- c
O
O
O
CO
un
O
ro
0
CM
O
*3-
CM
O
CO
*3-
CM
in
0
2: 2:
CO
0
0
CO
10
CM
in
in
CM
0
O
O
CO
Cn
Cn
U~>
cn
IO
un
cn
cn
cn
CO
cn
cn
cn
cn
O
cn
CO
•0
0
cn
IO
0
0
cn
O
0
*3-
0
<u
O
CO
0
0
VO
in
*r
10
2:
CM
0
f--
Cxi
-—
113
-—
•—
CO
CM
•—
LT)
in
CM
ID
^r
co
CNJ
in
'—
O
0
0
^
s-
O
O
O
ID
«3-
CM
0
vo
O
O
■3-
0
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
m
CO
CO
O
in
CNJ
0
-O 2:
CO
CM
ID
CO
CM
O
0
0
01
s!_
m
CO
,—
Ol c
*r
O
*3"
<zr
a>
0
CO
0
.0 1-
CO
O
ID
cn
ID
CO
10
O
CO
in
0
IT)
CM
in
0
■a-
CO
<=r
CO
0
0
0
>
0
z
ID
,_
en
0
CM
CM
CO
CM
,_
en
cn
co
m
O
co
CNJ
CNJ
p*.
cn
CM
0
0
z
CM
ID
0
0
CO
-0
ro
CO
^J"
O
0
0
0
0
*3- •
0
0
01
O
IO
CD
CM
vo
CM
2:
"""
r~
CO
C\J
r~
CO
■"
cn
CM
^
r~
r"-
■*"
CM
CO
«3-
CNJ
CNI
CO
cn^
O-— '
0
0
,_
01
0
O
in
0
0
CD
J3 X
<«0
0
CO
O
0
CO
CNJ
O
<d-
^O
0
cn
O T3
O
00
0
0
cn
0
CM
O
<T«
*-> 2:
CM
*3"
CO
en
CM
CM
O
O
O
O
4J
in
O
0
0
CM
CM
MO
CO
O
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
v£>
cn
en
co
CT»
ci 2:
CM
O
0
*r
m
CO
CNJ
in
CO
O
O
0
3
<:
CO
en
en
CO
CO
0
CO
CM
in
IT)
CO
CM
0
O
CNI
in
CO
CM
IO
10
z
JD
0
00
O
cc
O
*j-
0)
^
<_>
0
3
1/1
0
O
0
cn
—
to
<
0
<t
O
"■
•"
Q.
00
•"
H-
l_
a
CO
""
i_>
21
I—
z
^
00
1
1—
1/1
c_>
U"
Z
°~
227
0
0
CO
O
0
O:^
•^r
■o
lO
in
IT)
vO
0
0
0
CNJ
00
0
0
0)
VO
CM
0
O
lo
VO
VO
00
s:
O
00
0
CT.
O
O
O
in
0
CO
co
«3"
CO
O
a
cc
0
O
O
o~»
cr*
*a-
0
0
0
in
00
LO
0
en
CNJ
CO
0
en
ON
en
=> s:
CO
CM
on
VO
vO
en
CM
cr.
ON
O
0
>.
U">
CO
0
,-
2: c
10
a>
10
0
*3"
0
O
0
co
0
in
0
en
00
O
0
£
vO
CO
10
vo
CNJ
IO
CNJ
CM
en
«a-
CNJ
cn
O
0
O
0
0
O
m
-o
CO
10
«a-
O
O
0
co
ON
ON
0
O
LO
QJ
0
LO
CTi
CM
VO
10
O
CM
O
s:
00
O
O
O
<3-
«d-
CM
O
0
O
vo
0
CO
LO
O
CO
00
0
0
Ot
CXI
O
O
cr»
0
O
CO
cr.
VO
LO
S- ^
CO*
0
CM
0
CXi
cr>
O
0.21
OS
VO
CO
en
CO
O
c
•X.
-C
O
0
O
O
hH
,-
s- c
0
CO
CM
O
ON
O
0
cn
0
c
O
CM
O
CO
uo
en
cr.
2: £
r^"
"
"
<T>
*
*3-
O
0
c
-
-
-
-
-
en
n
-
<^-
CM
cn
en
en
en
en
CNJ
en
en
en
en
en
CNJ
«=r
-
0
O
0
on r-
-O
CO
0
CM
IO
VO
O
0
0
CO
0
O
O
OJ
0
^J-
0
O
1— CNJ
0
CNJ
vo
0
O
2:
0
CO
CM
1 '
^*
*-
*—
in
in
CNJ
vO
-=r
CO
CM
VO
r_
O
c
0
>>
O
0
O
CO
Z3 X
0
in
O
CD
0
O
0
0
0
O
<3"
VO
1- <B
0
00
0
CNJ
10
VO
■3-
CO
^r
J3 SI
CM
CO
10
10
CO
CO
O
0
0
QJ
V_
O
O
CNJ
CO
0> c
0
O
0
0
0
cn
0
vO
0
.O -r-
CM
0
0
O
E S
0
CT>
CTi
<a-
VO
CNJ
O
0
0
01
O
z
Z
vO
■**
■"*
l~~
'*■
■**
in
^
"~
in
^
^
■*"
^
VO
r~"
vO
r-~
^
r"'
VO
p-*
O
cn
0
"O
0
CO
0
VO
O
ID
CO
O
*r
10
UD
CO <3"
ST
r_
CO
r"
«>
■""
""
in
in
CNJ
^
in
CNJ
CM
rs""
r^ -
O
0
0
i-
O)
O
O
O
0
.Q X
LT>
O
0
0
0
VO
0
O
CT>
CO
CO
*3-
CXi
O
*3-
*~> s:
CM
CO
CM
in
■—
'
f-
■—
00
10
ro
CO
10
ro
CM
ON
r~
O
0
0
0
+j
CM
CO
O
CD
0
0
CO
CT»
CNJ
0
0
D *r-
m
ro
O
^r
^J-
vO
CTS
CO
«a-
CO
vO
O
0
0
«=t
-
CO
-
00
CO
CO
-
-
VO
-
IO
CO
CO
00
CO
f
00
cn
CO
co
CO
r-0
r-.
^
3
-D,
OO
s-
O
C£
O
O)
t->
Q
3
O
O
<_>
JZ
T3
«I
t_j
<t
0
LU
Q.
1—
•"
O
CO
Lj_
0
2:
H"
zz
iZ
in
x:
i/i
t_>
z
228
evident during the March-April period, probably due to runoff from the low-
lands area. At Locate, this secondary flow peak was almost equivalent to the
May-July runoff value. Median flows also increased significantly in a down-
stream direction in the Powder, from Moorhead to Locate, with this increase
greatest during the two runoff periods. The downstream percentage increases
by season were: August-October, 52.3 percent; November-February, 31.6 percent;
March-April, 128.9 percent; and May-July, 97.6 percent. The Powder drainage
in Montana therefore appears to contribute significantly to the volumes of
water at the river's mouth.
Although the Powder River had an average annual discharge equal to about
5 percent of that in the Yellowstone upstream of its confluence, this percen-
tage varied considerably between seasons as follows: August-October, 1.8 per-
cent; November-February, 4.1 percent; March-April, 16.6 percent; and May-July,
6.3 percent. These variations in flow and the high TDS concentrations indicate
that the Powder River could have a significant salinity loading effect on the
mainstem, particularly during the March-April period.
The potential effect of the Powder and Tongue rivers in increasing main-
stem salinities is shown in table 110.
TABLE 110. Calculated percentage increases in TDS of the Yellowstone River
from Miles City to below the confluence of the Powder River.
Powder River Powder plus Tongue Rivers Tongue River
5.9 0.8
9.1 1.0
28.7 -0.2
19.4 1.2
Annual Median 14.5 15.2 0.7
As indicated in table 110, the effects of the Tongue River would be negligible
during the March-April season and small through the rest of the year. The
Tongue would increase the annual median TDS level of the mainstem by only 0.7
percent, but the Powder would increase it by 14.5 percent. The effects of the
Powder are apparently smallest between August and February when flows in the
tributary would be low, and these effects would increase through those months
from summer to winter in correspondence to the increase in Powder flows. The
influences of the Powder on mainstem salinities are greatest during the March-
April period when its discharge would be high with high TDS concentrations.
Intermediate effects would be obtained during the May-July runoff period when
TDS levels in the Yellowstone River are low.
Except during the March-April season, the median seasonal TDS concentra-
tions in both reaches of the Powder River were inversely related to flow. The
unusually high TDS-SC levels of the March-April season corresponded to the
secondary peak in flow; the high salinities at this time probably reflected
inputs from lowland runoff with an inferior water quality. Median TDS and SC
levels tended to increase downstream in the river from Moorhead to Terry,
although increases were not totally consistent in all seasons or for both
229
Aug-Oct
5.1
Nov-Feb
8.1
March-April
28.9
May-July
18.2
parameters. They were highest during the November-April period, and slightly
lower in the August-October season. Overall, downstream changes in Powder sal-
inity were small. An annual median increase of 1852 mhos/cm to 1872 mhos/cm
(1.1 percent) was evident downstream in SC from the Moorhead to the Locate
reach. An annual median increase of 1335 mg/1 upstream to 1387 mg/1 (3.9 per-
cent) near Locate in TDS also was evident between the two segments. TDS:SC
ratios were 0.72 near Moorhead-Broadus and 0.74 at Locate-Terry. Although TDS
loads increased greatly downstream in the Powder River because of accessory TDS
inputs (from 1546 tons per day to 3067 tons per day annually), the overall TDS
concentrations of the Montana input waters would not be very much higher than
those of the mainstem, or significantly different from the TDS concentrations
of small prairie streams. The following measurements were determined from
the TDS load differences between reaches: August-October, 1326 mg/1; November-
February, 1748 mg/1; March-April, 1639 mg/1; May-July, 1148 mg/1; and annually,
1444 mg/1. A fairly large percentage of the salt load in the Powder River was
apparently obtained in Wyoming. Median values were between 70 percent and 71
percent during low flows, between 40 percent and 46 percent during the high
flows, and 50 percent annually.
Waters in the Powder River were extremely hard (Bean 1962, Durfor and
Becker 1964) and slightly saline (Robinove et al . 1958) in both reaches in all
seasons; 83 percent of the samples collected from the Powder had TDS concentra-
tions in excess of 1000 mg/1. Sulfate and sodium, the dominant cation and
anion, accounted for 60 percent to 62 percent of the annual median TDS concen-
tration. Calcium and bicarbonate were the secondary ions, and fluoride and
potassium were insignificant constituents.
The Powder River had high chloride concentrations, an unusual occurrence
in the Yellowstone Basin. A large proportion of the chloride loading in the
Powder was apparently derived from its Wyoming drainage, judging by the high
chloride levels obtained from the Moorhead-Broadus samples (table 108). Chlor-
ide concentrations then tended to decrease slightly dov/nstream to the Locate
reach. But the significant increases in chloride loads below Moorhead indi-
cated supplemental inputs of chloride from the Montana portion of the river's
drainage. Calculations based on the differences of chloride loads between
reaches indicated that these Montana inputs would have overall chloride con-
centrations ranging between 49 mg/1 and 118 mg/1, depending upon season.
Calcium and magnesium tended to decrease slightly downstream, as did total
hardness, contrasting to the river's significant downstream increase in sodium
levels. As a result, the Powder River tended to become more sodic in character
towards its mouth after passing through its prairie drainage, showing a defin-
ite downstream decline in its Ca:Na ratios. Sulfate and bicarbonate concentra-
tions remained fairly constant throughout the river, and HC03:S04 ratios did
not decrease downstream in the Powder River as they did in the Yellowstone
River and most other streams. Calcium concentrations exceeded magnesium levels
in both reaches of the Powder River. Ca:Mg ratios tended to increase from the
low- to the high-flow periods, and they tended to decline slightly downstream.
The slightly saline nature of the Powder River and the high concentrations
of some ionic constituents would be expected to lower the value of this stream
for many water uses. Obviously, the river would not be expected to be a good
source of water for public supply due to its high TDS, sulfate, and hardness
230
(Ca + Mg) levels. About 99 percent of the samples from the Powder had TDS and
sulfate concentrations in excess of the permissible criteria, recommendations,
and standards established by the NTAC (1968) and the EPA (1973) for surface
water public supply, and by the Public Health Service (1962) for drinking water
(table 9). About 66 percent of the Powder samples had turbidity levels in ex-
cess of the permissible level recommended for public supply (NTAC 1968). These
levels were most common during the March-to-July high-flow season and they were
highest in a downstream direction.
The water in the Powder River would not be of ideal quality for irrigation
because of a high salinity hazard during most of the year, along with a medium
sodium hazard at certain times of the year due to the river's high sodium con-
centrations and SAR values. The sodium hazard was greatest in the lower seg-
ment near Locate and most common during the August-April period.
As indicated by tables 15, 16, 108, and 109, the water in the Powder would
be mostly Class II and should consequently be used for irrigation with certain
restrictions. As noted by the EPA (1976), waters like those in the Powder with
salinities typically between 1000 and 2000 mg/1 of TDS--as in 75 percent of the
samples from the Powder River--". . . may have adverse effects on many crops
. . . (requiring) careful management practices." The best water quality for
irrigation from the Powder occurs, of course, during the high-flow, low TDS
runoff period of May-July; however, the high TSS concentrations typical of this
season may complicate irrigation use (USEPA 1973).
Salinities in the Powder River may have some detrimental effects on the
stream's aquatic biota since TDS concentrations and SC levels commonly exceeded
670 mg/1 and 1000 mhos/cm, and were often greater than 1350 mg/1 and 2000
mhos/cm, as shown in table 111.
TABLE 111. Percentage of Powder River samples with TDS and SC concentrations
in particular ranges.
Upper Reach
Lower Reach
March-
March-
Low Fl
ow
Apri 1
Runoff
Low Fl
ow
April
Runoff
TDS (mg/1)
<670
3
11
20
0
0
29
670-1350
23
33
67
33
33
43
>1350
75
56
13
67
67
29
SC (ymhos/cm)
<1000
5
22
20
0
0
38
1000-2000
37
33
73
40
50
38
>2000
58
44
7
60
50
25
However, suspended sediment and turbidity levels of the Powder River may affect
the stream's biota more than its salinity. The Powder should provide a good
quality water for all livestock (USEPA 1973, McKee and Wolf 1974, Seghetti 1951),
231
but the river's sulfate concentrations appeared to be at levels that would de-
tract from this good quality. As in many eastern Montana streams, sulfate con-
centrations were commonly in excess of the threshold levels for domestic ani-
mals (California WQCB 1963). TDS concentrations would not affect animals
physiologically, but the sulfate levels of the Powder samples may do so, con-
ceivably reducing stock production.
Of the major parameters summarized in tables 108 and 109, salinity (TDS-SC),
suspended sediment, turbidity, total hardness (calcium plus magnesium), SAR
(sodium), sulfate, and possibly the critical nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen)
indicated water quality problems in the Powder River. None of the remaining
major parameters (fluoride, chloride, bicarbonate-total alkalinity, and potas-
sium) appeared to be significant.
The Powder River has been designated a B-D3 warm-water stream by the State
of Montana. This classification is appropriate considering the high maximum
water temperatures obtained from the stream during warm-weather periods; the
pH values and DO concentrations were also in accordance with a B-D3 classifi-
cation. Low DO levels were measured in a few of the samples from the stream,
but they were generally obtained in conjunction with high TSS levels. For the
most part, the river was wery close to oxygen saturation throughout its length,
with median DO levels within 5 percent to 6 percent of saturation (table 112).
The high DO levels of the Powder River suggest that no substantial organic
pollution reaches the stream; and this was substantiated in the upper reach by
the low BOD5 concentrations. BODc values tended to increase downstream to the
lower reach during all seasons, which suggests organic inputs between Moorhead
and Terry. This was also indicated by the associated downstream increase in
TOC levels and by the slight downstream decline in median DO saturation. These
downstream increases in BOD5 were small, and occasionally high values approach-
ing 10 mg/1 can be expected as a natural occurrence. The downstream BOD5 con-
centrations near Locate were at insufficient levels to indicate that extensive
organic pollution reaches the river. The small organic inputs to the Powder
River seem to be more like those obtained from natural sources than from muni-
cipal effluents, although the town of Broadus may contribute (USDI 1968). The
annual median BOD5 loading to the Powder River would amount to about 8 tons
per day, or only 8 mg/1.
Fecal coliform concentrations also increased downstream in the Powder
River, but not consistently through all seasons. Annual median fecal concen-
trations increased slightly from 117 colonies per 100 ml near Moorhead-Broadus
to 133 colonies per 100 ml near Locate-Terry. Coliform concentrations were not
noticeably high in either reach, except during the runoff season, and seasonal
median concentrations were within the state's average criteria in all months
except May to July. About 16 percent of the samples had coliform concentrations
in excess of the state's criteria for grab samples. This percentage was slight-
ly greater than the 10 percent leeway prescribed by the state for a 30-day
period (table 8). However, 78 percent of these grab sample excesses occurred
during the high-flow period when high fecal counts would result from overland
runoff. Only 7 percent of the grab samples had fecal s in excess of the NTAC
(1968) and the EPA (1973) recommendations for public supply. Fecal strep levels
in the Powder River were also low (table 112), and the annual median fecal coli-
form:fecal strep ratio (0.83) indicates a "predominance of livestock and poultry
232
TABLE 112. Summary
of mi seel laneous
constituent and
trace element concentrat
asured in the Powder Rtvcr
Nea
r Moorhead-Broadus
Near Locate-Terry
N
Miscellaneous
constituents and
total recoverable
metals
Min Max
Med
N
Dissolved metals
Min Max
b
Med
N
Miscellaneous
constituents and
total recoverable
metals
Min Max Med
D1
N
ssolved
Min
metals
Max
Med
Color
4
9 45
20
CN
8
0.0 .01
0.0
00c
15
35 108
95
15
20 104 94
Fecal strep
12
31 970 110
M8AS
12
0.0 .06
.005
NH3-N
33
0.0 0.61
0.08
Si
20
3.3 12
6.8
15
5.5 12 8.3
TOC
1
6
5
6.6 53 33
Ag
14
0.0
.003
0.0
(.002)
Al
6
3.6 270
14
4
0.0
03
.02
As
10
<.001 0.350
0.006
13
0.0
006
0.0
9
<.001 0.060 0.008
5
0.0
.002
.001
B
6
<.10 0.42
0.19
28
.10
89
.26
6
<.10 0.20 0.18
Ba
6
0.0
07
0.0
Cd
23
0.0 0.02
.003
14
0.0
002
0.0
15
<.001 0.01 «,01
5
0.0
.001
0.0
Co
6
0.0
.025
.001
5
0.15 <.05
4
0.0
.001
.0005
Cr
12
0.0 0.50
•c.01
6
0.0 .10 .03
5
0.0
.01
0.0
Cu
25
<.01 0.90
0.02
16
0.0
030
.009
15
<.01 0.22 0.02
5
.003
.008
.005
Fe
23
0.09 600
6.7
19
0.0
399
.030
15
0.03 170 6.3
5
.02
.15
.06
Hg
12
0.0 .0011
<.001
11
0.0
0009
.0002
9
<.0002 <.001 0.0002
5
0.0
.0003
.0001
Li
2
.06
06
.06
Mn
21
<.01 6.8
0.26
15
0.0
240
.017
14
0.03 14.0 0.46
5
0.0
.01
0.0
Ho
13
0.0
] 3 1
.003
Ni
14
0.0
031)
.005
Pb
11
<.01 0.80
<.10
16
0.0
008
.0005
10
-.10 0.20 <.10
5
0.0
.004
.002
Se
9
0.0 .008
.002
10
0.0
011
.002
5
.001 .005 .002
5
.001
.003
.002
Sr
V
6
6
1.20
0.0
.43
. 106
1.43
.0017
3
3
.50 1.5 1.4
<.05 <.10 <.05
Zn
21
<.01 5.0
0.05
16
0.0
1 80
.020
15
<.01 1.8 0.05
5
.02
.04
.02
NOTE: Measurements are expressed in mg/1.
aV: 0.05, N=l.
b8e: <0.01, N=ll ; Cr: <.01, N=9.
DO expressed as percentage of saturation.
233
wastes in mixed pollution" (Millipore Corporation 1972). Data presented here
indicate that bacterial contamination of the Powder River, including that from
human sources, is not a major water quality problem.
Phosphorus concentrations were high in both reaches of the Powder River
(tables 108 and 109); the median concentration exceeded the reference criteria
for eutrophication in 75 percent of the seasonal periods. About 60 percent of
the samples from the Powder had phosphorus levels in excess of 0.05 mg P/l , and
49 percent of the samples had concentrations greater than the reference levels
established by the EPA (1974b) for eutrophication. The high phosphorus levels
were possibly related to the river's high TSS concentrations as the median phos-
phorus values tended to increase downstream from Moorhead to Locate except
during the May-July period.
Nitrogen concentrations were also high in the Powder River except during
the summer. Nitrogen concentrations showed warm-weather low median values
in August-October and high concentrations during winter and spring. However,
the river was nitrogen-limited, with median nitrogen concentrations lower than
or closer to the reference level than was phosphorus. About 32 percent of the
samples from the Powder River had nitrogen concentrations in excess of 0.35 mg
N/1, but only 1.2 percent had levels in excess of the EPA's (1974b) more strin-
gent criteria for eutrophication. The river was non-eutrophic during the cri-
tical summer season due to the low median nitrogen concentrations, but if median
ammonia concentrations are considered (table 112), the river was potentially
eutrophic during the less critical and cooler November-to-April period because
both median phosphorus and nitrogen levels would exceed reference levels at
this time. During the May-July period, the river was limited in either nitro-
gen (Moorhead reach) or in both nitrogen and phosphorus (Locate reach), although
the upper reach had median concentrations approaching eutrophic levels. The
Powder River came closer to eutrophy than most of the streams and reaches in
the Yellowstone Basin. On a yearly basis, about 29 percent of the samples from
the Powder River would be expected to have both nitrogen and phosphorus in ex-
cess of their reference criteria, but only 0.4 percent of the samples would
have both of these nutrients in excess of the reference levels established by
the EPA (1974b).
Probably the most distinctive water quality features of the Powder River
in all reaches are its high suspended sediment concentrations and its high tur-
bidity values. At low flows median TSS concentrations in the Powder near Locate
were between 3.3 and 8.9 times greater than those in the Yellowstone River near
Miles City in comparable seasons. Median turbidities were between 4.4 and 13.9
times greater in the Powder than in the mainstem. Maximum TSS concentrations
in the Powder near Locate during the low-flow seasons were as much as 9.7 times
higher than the maximums recorded at low flows in the Yellowstone above the
confluence of the Powder.
Such high TSS concentrations were most noticeable during the March-July
high-flow periods at which times high median TSS-turbidity values were obtained
in excess of 2000 mg/1 and 200 JTU and particularly high values were obtained
from some grab samples. The 62,800 mg/1 value recorded in table 109 is espec-
ially noticeable; 33 percent of the sample volume was due to settleable solids
(Karp et al . 1975). At high flows, median TSS levels in the Powder near its
mouth were between 64 times (during March-April) and 12 times (during May-July)
234
Aug-Oct
14.2
Nov-Jan
9.2
March-April
900.0
May-July
66.7
higher than those in the Yellowstone near Miles City, and maximum values were
between 149 times and 9.3 times higher than the maximums obtained from the main-
stem. High flow turbidities were between 3.6 times (during March-April) and 32
times (during May-July) higher than those in the Yellowstone near Miles City,
and maximum values were between >1.3 times and 11 times higher than the maxi-
mums obtained from the mainstem. Consequently, the Powder River would be ex-
pected to have a considerable influence on mainstem water quality.
The potential of the Powder and Tongue rivers to increase mainstem sus-
pended sediment concentrations is shown through the loading calculations pre-
sented in table 113.
TABLE 113. Calculated percentage increases in TSS in the Yellowstone from near
Miles City to below the confluence of the Powder.
Powder River Powder plus Tongue Rivers Tongue River
13.2 -1.0
6.3 -2.9
863.0 -37.0
63.6 -3.1
Annual Median 84.6 80.8 -3.8
These percentages suggest that the Tongue River should have a negligible effect
on the TSS levels of the Yellowstone mainstem. Comparisons of the TSS data in
tables 57 and 92 indicate that inputs from the Tongue River would reduce the
TSS concentrations in the mainstem below the confluence (between 0.6 percent
and 2.7 percent) since the Tongue had lower TSS levels than the Yellowstone near
Miles City during all seasons. As shown in table 113, the Tongue, through the
addition of water volume, would negate the subsequent effects of the Powder on
mainstem TSS concentrations. The Powder River would significantly increase
mainstem TSS levels, but this increase would be small during the August-to-
October period when flows and TSS concentrations would be low. The most sig-
nificant effects would be obtained during the March-April season (the secondary
runoff peak) when flows of the Powder would be high in comparison to those of
the mainstem. Intermediate effects would be observed during the May-July sea-
son because the high flow-high TSS inputs from the Powder would be less notice-
able due to the high Yellowstone flows and the high TSS levels already devel-
oped in the mainstem from upstream sources. On a yearly basis, the Powder
River could increase the annual median TSS level of the Yellowstone about 85
percent; the Tongue would decrease TSS levels by about 4 percent. The Powder
River is therefore responsible for a net annual median accrual in TSS of nearly
81 percent from Miles City to Fallon.
Suspended solids concentrations were related to flow in the Powder River
(tables 108 and 109). Median TSS concentrations consistently increased down-
stream through all seasons, indicating a downstream degradation in water quality.
Median TSS concentrations increased by the following percentages from the Moor-
head-Broadus to the Locate-Terry reach in each season: August-October, 152
percent; November-February, 25 percent; March-April, 139 percent; May- July,
189 percent. Annual median TSS levels increased from 914 mg/1 upstream to
235
2365 mg/1 near Locate, an increase of 159 percent. Median TSS loads in the
upper reach of the Powder ranged from 33 tons per day to 104 tons per day dur-
ing low flows (August-February) and ranged from 3720 tons per day to 4367 tons
per day during high flows (March-July). Median TSS loads were significantly
higher in the lower reach, ranging between 126 tons per day and 171 tons per
day and between 20,376 tons per day and 24,935 tons per day for the same sea-
sonal periods. This marked downstream increase in TSS loading in the river
suggests significant inputs of suspended sediment from the Montana portion of
its drainage. Comparisons of the TSS loads in the two reaches indicate that
the Wyoming portion of the Powder drainage would contribute only 18 percent to
26 percent of the suspended sediment in the river between March and October and
61 percent during the winter. The drainage above Moorhead would contribute
between 40 percent and 71 percent, depending upon flow, of the river's TDS
levels.
Loading calculations indicate that inputs of water from the Montana drain-
age would require median TSS concentrations between 336 mg/1 and 507 mg/1 during
low flows, and between 7207 mg/1 and 9234 mg/1 during high flows in order to
account for the increase in suspended sediment in the Powder from Moorhead to
its mouth. Such high calculated concentrations indicate that some of the TSS
in the river probably comes from natural bank and stream bottom erosion and
from channel redefinition in addition to surface water confluences. During
low-flow periods with a stable discharge and reduced surface runoff, suspended
sediment levels in the Powder are significantly lower and are probably derived
from these autochthonous actions. This type of scouring continues throughout
the year and would be greatly increased during periods of greater discharge.
However, during the high-flow periods, the marked increases in TSS that occur
are also probably due in part to inputs from overland flow and surface runoff
with the associated erosion of adjacent lands. In any event, the high TSS levels
of the Powder indicate readily erodible soils in the region.
The high salinities of the Powder River indicate poor water quality, re-
stricting many beneficial uses of the stream. This is reinforced by the high
suspended sediment levels of the stream which further restrict water uses.
The Powder would be a poor source of water for public supply because of its
high turbidities and its high TDS levels. About two-thirds of the samples
collected from the Powder had turbidities in excess of the 75 JTU permissible
level for this parameter (NTAC 1968). The high TSS concentrations of the stream
could also cause indirect problems and expense to irrigation use by tending
". . . to fill canals and ditches, causing serious cleaning and dredging pro-
blems" (USEPA 1973). In addition, the application of irrigation waters with
high TSS concentrations could tend ". . .to further reduce the already low
infiltration characteristics of slowly permeable soils ..." (USEPA 1973),
assuming that such soils are present in the Powder drainage. The apparent
erodibility of the adjacent lands, attested to by the high TSS levels of the
river, indicates that this is the case. This in turn further complicates
irrigation and other agricultural pursuits through the need for more careful
management practices.
The high TSS level of the Powder River would be expected to adversely
affect the aquatic biota. The annual median TSS concentrations of the stream
suggest a very poor fishery (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission
1965). A resident fishery in the Powder might be somewhat different from the
236
rest of the Yellowstone Basin because of its requisite adaptation to high silt
loads; the unique occurrence of the sturgeon chub in the Powder drainage is
possibly related to this fact (Karp et al . 1975). However, migrant warm-water
game fish have been observed in the river, and this stream is apparently used
as a spawning ground by various species originating in the Yellowstone (Peterman
1977).
The high TSS-turbidity levels of the Powder may have added effects on the
biota by reducing primary production in the stream through the sediment's
scouring action on the benthos and through decreased light penetration. Klarich
(1976) observed that the high turbidities of the Clarks Fork River apparently
kept production below the potential inherent in the river's nutrient concen-
trations. This could also apply to the Powder River, which had significantly
greater turbidities than the Clarks Fork (Karp et al . 1976a). Such restric-
tions of primary production could affect other aspects of the river's biota.
The Powder River also had high TR concentrations of several trace elements
in both reaches (table 112). High TR concentrations of Al , Fe, and Mn have
been observed in the Yellowstone River and many other streams, but they were
much higher in the Powder samples. The TR concentrations of Co, Cr, Cu, Pb,
and Zn were also high in the Powder collections, unlike those in most of the
other waters of the Yellowstone Basin.
The low dissolved concentrations of many of the trace elements--Al , Ag, As,
B, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Li, Mo, Ni , Pb, Se, and V--indicate no potential
water quality problems; maximum and median dissolved concentrations were well
below the reference criteria. The high TR levels of the Powder samples were
probably related to their high TSS concentrations, and because the Powder had
significantly greater suspended sediment levels than most of the other streams,
higher TR concentrations might be expected as a natural development. In addi-
tion, Si, Sr, MBAS, ammonia, and cyanide were not at levels high enough to in-
dicate water quality problems or pollution inputs. However, the Powder River
was somewhat colored (i.e., color greater than 10 units), and this, along with
the high turbidities, would indicate aesthetic degradation of the stream.
Therefore, color, Fe, Hg, Mn, and Zn appear to be the greatest potential
water quality problems in the Powder River. In the upper reach, the maximum
dissolved concentrations of Fe and Mn exceeded the reference criteria for
public supply and drinking water (USEPA 1973, NTAC 1968, USDHEW 1962), and,
along with zinc, also exceeded the criteria for aquatic life (USEPA 1973).
Such problems would be expected to be occasional in the upper segment, however,
since the median dissolved concentrations were below the reference levels. In
the Locate-Terry reach, Fe, Mn, and Zn concentrations did not indicate water
quality problems at any time. Of the metals, mercury appears to be the great-
est continual problem to aquatic life and municipal supply; the median and grab
sample dissolved concentrations often equalled or exceeded water-use criteria
in both reaches (tables 9 and 19). Of the samples from the Powder analyzed,
44 percent had dissolved Hg equal to or greater than 2.0 ug/1, and 56 percent
had dissolved Hg equal to or greater than 1.0 ug/1.
237
Little Powder River
The Little Powder River and Mizpah Creek are the Powder River's two major
tributaries in Montana. Mizpah Creek has a rather extensive drainage area lo-
cated entirely in Montana adjacent to Pumpkin Creek drainage; it joins the
Powder from the southwest about 37 miles upstream from Terry near Mizpah (USDI
1968). The Little Powder River has most of its drainage in Wyoming, with only
a short 34-mile segment located in Montana before it joins the mainstem from
the southeast near Broadus (USDI 1968). Both of these tributaries tend towards
intermittency with extremely low flows recorded through part of the year; zero
flows have been observed in both streams (USDI 1 966-1 974a) . This intermittency,
however, is greatest in Mizpah Creek, particularly in the upper reaches. Mon-
tana's Little Powder is probably more perennial than intermittent because it
is ponded throughout the year. The annual average discharge of both streams
is low— 39.6 cfs in the Little Powder River (USDI 1966-1974a). The volume of
water in these two tributaries is not at adequate levels to account for a very
large percentage of the 290 cfs annual median downstream increase in mainstem
flows from Moorhead to Terry. Some water quality data are also available from
the USGS on the Little Powder (USDI 1966-1974b) as a result of a past sampling
program (table 3). These USGS data, combined with several state WQB collec-
tions from the stream, were adequate for a seasonal classification (table 114).
The chemical composition of the Little Powder's water was similar to that
of the mainstem. TDS concentrations and SC levels were generally the same in
both streams, although they were slightly higher in the smaller river (27 per-
cent to 39 percent on an annual basis). This correlates with the downstream
increase in TDS in the Powder. Waters of both streams were extremely hard and
slightly saline (Bean 1962, Durfor and Becker 1964, Robinove et al . 1958). The
Little Powder River also had a definite sodium sulfate water, and calcium and
bicarbonate were the secondary ions. As a result, SAR values were also high.
As in the Powder River, calcium concentrations exceeded magnesium levels, and
potassium and fluoride were insignificant constituents of the samples. Chlor-
ide concentrations were significantly lower than those of the Powder, and po-
tassium concentrations were slightly higher. The critical nutrient concentra-
tions in the Little Powder were also significantly lower than those in the
mainstem, and the smaller stream was obviously non-eutrophic during all seasons.
TSS-turbidity levels were high in the Little Powder River, but not as high as
those in the Powder River. This tributary would apparently not contribute sig-
nificantly to the downstream increases in TSS loads that characterize the main-
stem; the median TSS concentrations were only between 14 percent and 46 percent
of those in the Powder near Broadus. TSS concentrations and flow were directly
related in the Little Powder, but the maximum flows and TSS levels were ob-
tained during the March-April season, suggesting an early prairie runoff.
The Little Powder River has been classified a B-D3 stream by the State of
Montana, which is appropriate considering the high maximum warm-weather temp-
eratures obtained in conjunction with grab samples. Values of pH and concen-
trations of DO and fecal coliforms were also in accord with this B-D3 designa-
tion (table 8). Although median BOD5 levels were slightly higher in the Little
Powder samples than in most water samples from the Yellowstone Basin, maximum
values were not very different from those obtained in Beauvais Creek. Median
BOD5 values were also high in the lower Powder River (table 109). The low
maximum BOD5 values suggest natural lowland prairie streams rather than organic
238
in
o
cn
o
CO
■o
CM
*r
lO
LO
cn
00
CM
LO
CM
CM
CO
O
o
o
o
o
V0
co
CO
o
o
CO
CO
O
e:
00
CO
CM
en
LO
CM
CO
o
00
o
o
CO
o
CD
>* X
V0
o
10
o
O
cn
10
O
o
CM
LO
in
-3-
00
o
10
«T
CM
LO
CO
LT»
"^ s:
in
00
co
CM
cn
cn
lO
CO
cn
^r
^3"
ro
CD
O
7
>i
00
o
LO
^_
e: c
*T
00
o
*j-
o
o
*r
«3-
o
O
o
CM
ao
^'
in
cn
lO
CM
LO
£
cn
lD
CO
co
CO
CM
O
O
en
Ol
cn
cn
lO
10
lo
cn
en
cn
<j>
CO
on
cn
cn
-T>
CO
cn
V£>
co
cn
O
■o
o
o
o
CO
10
o
CM
CO
CO
o
O
CD
10
LT)
CO
o
O
O
cn
in
e:
co
cn
00
CM
■"
«*
^
o
■"■
LO
LO
cn
CO
LO
CO
CM
CO
**■
o
CD
o
o
p^
o
cn
CD
LO
^.
en
to
10
O
CD
o
n
in
o
CO
CO
<^-
00
.-a
q.e:
cn
00
CM
cn
<3"
CO
CM
o
o
<c
^2
CM
CO
S- C
o
cn
cn
cn
o
o
CO
i£>
o
CM
o
o
10
00
O
o
CM
a
o
e: £
in
CM
*T
CO
CO
cn
O
o
o
^
10
„
-
<3-
<3-
co
»
CM
CM
-
-
-
<3"
-
-
-
*3-
„
-
-
^r
-
CO
10
O
CD
CO
-o
CO
o
o
CM
10
lO
o
o
<U
CO
CO
lo
*3-
«£>
00
e:
o
o
r-~
-—
CM
1^
•—
A
o
CT.
LO
^
CM
•—
LO
CO
CM
lO
■—
o
o
^
>i
lO
'O
c
o
o
CO
o
CO
o
CO
CM
o
o
t- fO
en
*3-
a^
CO
in
LO
co
lO
-O £
CO
CO
*J-
■3"
t
CO
CM
cn
CM
<3"
CD
OJ
U-
s-
UJ
tD
10
*r-
-—
d) c
O
o
cn
cn
cn
CO
CO
o
o
o
.o •<-
CO
CD
O
LO
CM
E e:
o
o
10
10
Cn
o
«3"
*3"
o
o
ai
o
^
z
10
co
in
in
m
CM
"*
CM
CM
CO
LO
LO
LO
in
"*
LO
LO
CO
IT)
in
-=f
<=r
CM
10
T
o
o
o
o
CM
T3
CO
CO
o
cn
o
«3-
o
o
OJ
o>
CM
co
cn
cn
CO
CO
CT^
cn
'*
in
e:
O
00
CM
CM
00
CO
00
*■"
t~
CO
in
r"
cn
CO
ro
l—
*~
O
CD
o
t
O
KO
10
cn
o
in
^_
«3-
«3-
CO
cn
CD
o
cn
o
CO
DO
VO
VO
o
o
10
o
CO
lo
LO
o
o
~o
CO
o e:
O
CO
co
LO
CO
«3-
00
cn
*J-
CO
O
o
c
**
o
UJ
CM
in
CO
CM
CM
o
in
*T
*0
LO
o
LO
cn
o
o
o
o
o
CM
CO
cn
CM
CO
3 e:
o
o
CO
m
LO
CO
O
o
o
3
■a:
==
r-
**
'-
^
""-
«3"
CM
co
CM
"*
■**
^
r"
•"•
'-
■"*
^
*T
r-
Ifi
"~-
l£>
in
s
Q.
JD
CO
o
tO
a
cc
o
<^-
a>
rx
<_>
o
3
O
o
CJ
CT
z:
n
<
L_)
•I
o
L-
a.
»—
t—
O
CD
u-
o
s:
t—
^
^
LO
^
»—
oo
u
z
Cu
239
inputs from pollution sources. This supposition is supported by the low TOC
concentration of one sample from the Little Powder River (table 115). The
major water quality problems in the Little Powder River appear to be essen-
tially the same as those in the Powder River but not nearly as severe.
Water quality problems evident in the Little Powder were salinity (with
high TDS-SC levels), hardness (with high magnesium and calcium concentrations),
SAR (with high sodium levels), sulfate (with high concentrations), and possi-
bly turbidity and suspended sediment (with high levels). The associated water-
use restrictions can be summarized as follows:
1) For use as a surface water public supply and drinking water, the
waters had high hardness and turbidity. Also, TDS and sulfate
levels were generally in excess of reference criteria (table 9).
2) For livestock watering, the water had high sulfate concentrations
commonly in excess of the threshold (November to July) or the
limiting (August to October) levels. This may produce physiolo-
gical effects (California WQCB 1963), but the TDS concentrations
indicated a fair-to-good/very satisfactory class for all live-
stock (tables 10-14).
3) For irrigation, the water had a high-to-very high salinity hazard
and a medium sodium hazard (USDA 1954), and a Class II water due
to the high SAR, sulfate, and TDS-SC levels (tables 15 and 16)
that "... may have adverse effects on many crops (table 17)
(requiring) careful management practices ..." (USEPA 1976).
4) For aquatic life, the water had high TDS and SC levels commonly
in excess of 1350 mg/1 and 2000 ymhos/cm (Ellis 1944). This was
true in 72 percent of the Little Powder samples in which TDS was
measured and in 68 percent of the samples in which SC was measured.
Annual median TSS-turbidity levels (62 JTU and 186 mg/1) suggest
a fair warm-water fishery in the stream (European Inland Fisheries
Advisory Commission 1965).
High TR concentrations of Al , Fe, and Mn were obtained in correspondence
with high TSS levels. Low TR and dissolved concentrations of As, B, Be, Cr,
Li, Mo, Ni , Pb, Sb, Se, V, and Zn were obtained, indicating no water quality
problems. Low dissolved concentrations of Al , Cd, and Cu were obtained, but
their TR levels exceeded various reference criteria. However, only Fe and
Mn levels were high enough to adversely affect at least two water uses--public
supply/drinking water and aquatic biota.
Mizpah Creek Drainage
Not much historical water quality and flow information is available on
Mizpah Creek (USDI 1966-1974a, USDI 1966-1974b) ; however, the USGS has initiated
a sampling program on this stream (table 3) (USDI 1976). The state WQB has
also sampled this stream as a part of two water quality inventories (Karp et
al. 1975, Montana DNRC 1974). Combining the data from these two agencies
allowed for a flow-based (although not a seasonal -based) classification of
240
TABLE 115. Summary of miscellaneous constituent and
trace element concentrations measured
Little Powder River near the Montana
and near Broadus
-Wyoming state line
Mlzpah Cree
drainage
Miscellaneous
constituents andh
total recoverable"
metals
N Min Max Med
N
Dissolved metals
Min Max Med
N
Miscellaneous
constituents and
total recoverable
metals
Min Max Med
Ived metals
N Min Max
D0C
2
58 69 64
NH.-N
Si
4 0.0 .13 .04
12 3.0 14 10
2
14 15 15
TOC
1 -- -- 12
Al
4 0.32 5.00 3.15
2
0.0 0.0 0.0
1
.05
As
6 -=.001 0.020 0.002
2
0.0 0.0 0.0
4
0.0 0.016 '.001
B
16 <.10 0.26 0.18
4
.08 .24 .175
6
<.10 0.4 0.19
2 .27 .35
.31
Be
2
0.0 <.01 <.01
Cd
16 -.001 0.010 0.001
2
0.0 0.001 <.001
15
<.001 <.01 -.001
(.004)
Cr
5 0.0 .01 0.0
2
0.0 0.0 0.0
1
0.0
Cu
16 <.01 0.06 0.01
2
.002 .003 .0025
15
<.01 0.06 <.01
Fe
24 .04 7.8 .64
4
0.0 1.10 0.55
15
.28 6.5 .68
2 .03 .32
.175
Hg
Li
6 0.0 <.001 .0004
4 .03 .04 .04
2
2
0.0 0.0001 <.0001
.03 .05 .04
6
<.001 <.001 <.001
Mn
16 .03 1.3 .23
2
.05 .11 .08
15
.02 .97 .13
Mo
4 .001 .005 .002
2
.02 .05 .035
Ni
4 -=.05 0.05 <.05
2
.005 .007 .006
Pb
2
.001 .004 .0025
1
..
Sb
1 -- -- 0.0
1
0.0
Se
4 .001 .002 .001
2
.001 .001 .001
1
0.0
V
1 -- — .10
2
.0006 .0020 .0013
1
.80
Zn
16 <.01 0.08 0.01
2
0.0 0.01&
15
<.01 0.05 0.01
(.21?)
NOTE: Measurements are given in mg/1.
Sand and Sheep creeks, upper Mizpah Creek
bBe: <.01, N=4; Pb: <-100, N=5.
00 expressed as percentage of saturation.
Volborg, lower Mizpah Creek near Mizpah.
241
water quality information available on the lower segment of the stream near
Mizpah. Statistical summaries of the data from the upper reach of Mizpah Creek
and from the two Mizpah tributaries are presented in table 116.
The high maximum warm-weather temperatures, pH values, and DO and fecal
coliform concentrations in samples from the Mizpah Creek drainage were gener-
ally in accord with the B-D3 designation applied to these waters (Montana DHES
undated). In 15 percent of the samples high fecal counts in violation of the
state's coliform standards were obtained, particularly in the upper reach, but
for the most part, fecal concentrations were well within permissible criteria
for a surface water public supply (NTAC 1968). This and the fact that BOD5
concentrations were low indicates that no municipal-organic pollution reaches
the drainage.
The streams in the Mizpah drainage had very low critical nutrient concen-
trations, indicating that they are probably non-eutrophic. The major water
quality problems and water-use restrictions appear to be related primarily to
salinity and to the high concentrations of particular ionic constituents. Iron
and manganese could detract from the quality of their water, and TSS-turbidity
levels could restrict certain water uses, primarily municipal-public supply.
However, levels of these parameters were below those in the Little Powder River,
and they were not remarkable compared to other streams of the Yellowstone Basin.
In general, therefore, suspended sediment and turbidity do not suggest water
quality problems in Mizpah Creek except during portions of the high-flow periods,
Mizpah Creek near Mizpah did not have TSS levels or flows high enough to con-
tribute to the marked downstream increases in suspended sediment loads observed
on the Powder mainstem.
The TDS-SC levels of the Mizpah Creek samples and their chemical composi-
tions were similar to those obtained from the Little Powder River, although
ionic concentrations were significantly higher in the two Mizpah tributary
streams. The waters were extremely hard (Bean 1962, Durfor and Becker 1964)
in the Mizpah drainage; they were slightly saline in Mizpah Creek and moder-
ately saline in the tributaries (Robinove et al . 1958). These streams had a
definite sodium sulfate water with high SAR values, and calcium-magnesium and
bicarbonate were the secondary ions. Fluoride, chloride, and potassium were
observed in very low concentrations.
Water quality problems and water-use restrictions in Mizpah Creek would
be generally the same as those in the Little Powder. The low chloride levels
of both the Little Powder River and Mizpah Creek were well below the calculated
overall chloride concentrations of input waters to the Powder (49 mg/1 to 118
mg/1); this suggests that other significant sources of water reach and affect
the mainstem (possibly groundwater).
242
U0
CM
o
CO
r-
■o
«3-
ro
in
en
CM
*r
oj
o
o
«3-
a
1- u
oo
00
«3-
in
o
o
o
s
"~
in
00
"~
m
m
vn
"*
"~~
r""
CO
SSI
m
*r
O
O
a
CM
oo
o
cn
o
CM
CM
o
CM
CJ — * X
o
o
m
o
CO
in
ro
CM
ro
<d m ra
CT>
CO
O
o
00
in
o
IS
00
CO
*3-
~-t
in
o
o
CD
o u
jz o
^.
a
Q..— C
un
o
o
in
*r
m
00
o
00
m
en
in
cn
ro
ro
O
^r
o
in
CM
CO
o
o
CD
CD
— a
O 'f-
lO
UD
VO
in
lO
in
in
in
in
m
in
in
^~
in
in
m
in
m
m
O
o
o
*r
o
ro
Cv
-c
o
in
co
en
^r
uo
o
S- GJ
o
in
en
in
o
o
o
o
CO
CM
ro
en
<3-
CC
o
o
_^
ro
ro
,_
co
O
o
CM
,_
ro
CNJ
en
cn
CM
en
o
«n
00
*r
cn
O
a> m <o
o
o
o
CO
o
^r
in
a
s- n- s:
o
C\J
co'
CO
co
CO
in
in
CM
o
O
3
O U
-C o
LlJ
ro
o
CM
in
Cn
CTt
o
in
en
o
O
o
o
in
cc
00
CO
■^ — s:
co
r^
o
CO
ro
CM
CO
CO
CO
c
o
CD
s
3 N
O 'r-
«3-
*3-
^r
*r
<s-
ro
in
o
o
00
-rj
o
CT>
o
c
o
o
00
en
3
ro
O
o
cn
CO
en
in
en
c
_^
o
CM
r^
o
CM
in
CM
r-
0) X
o
CO
CO
in
CD
cn
CD
0) *>
CO
o
in
o
cn
s- s:
o
Cn
CO
CM
en
en
CM
<_>
T3
m
o
O
o
O
in
»n
in
in
o
o
CO
o
o
c
CD
en
o
O
00
o
— s:
o
in
in
00
«3-
ro
CD
CD
s: en
s-
s- o
at .a
D.-—
a. o
Z3 >■ ^
^3"
«3"
~
in
CD
cn
s
QJ TD
o
■3-
en
CM
o
o
in
ro
O
•r- QJ
CM
o
CO
in
a
s- 2:
o
00
*3"
in
ro
CO
in
en
CO
CM
o
c
aj 3
aj xi
O
O
O
en
CO
in
in
5. -F- X
o
CO
o
**-
CO
ro
U i- T3
in
LT1
00
CO
o
00
CM
CO
o
CO
ID
in
ro
cn
CD-
CD oj
j= aj
o
O
00
o
m
l/> l- c
CD
*T
cn
in
in
CO
o —
O
o
in
in
o
CO
uo
o
•a s:
o
cd
in
a-
CM
■3-
CM
~:
C JZ
£
a.
=3
■a fsi
uo - — sr
CSI
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
C
3
Q.
-Q
ro
o
a
CtC
O
T
5
cd
O
3
o
o
t_>
I
T3
<
i_>
CC
CD
""
a.
in
•"
}—
•"
a
CO
tJ-
c_>
s:
•""
Z
&£
uO
—
*~
wT
O
~
s
~
243
YELLOWSTONE RIVER
POWDER RIVER TO MONTANA-NORTH DAKOTA BORDER
YELLOWSTONE MAINSTEM
The USGS has maintained a single water quality irrigation network station
on the lower Yellowstone River near Sidney for several years (USDI 1974), and
the state WQB has also made collections from various sites on the lower river
in recent years. Appropriate data from these two agencies were combined and
seasonally classified to represent a reach of the Yellowstone River near
Sidney. These data confirm that between Corwin Springs and Miles City, the
Yellowstone River had significant and consistent downstream increases in TDS
and ionic constituent concentrations during all seasons. Calculations of po-
tential TDS loading to the mainstem from the Tongue and Powder rivers suggested
that such concentration increases would continue below Miles City to the river's
mouth near Fairview. Also, salinity-related water quality problems and assoc-
iated water-use restrictions probably would be greatest and most critical in
the lower reach of the river.
State WQB data from the upstream locations below Miles City were separately
combined to represent another river reach west of Sidney between Terry and In-
take (USDI 1968); in this manner, the water quality data from the Terry-to-
Intake sampling sites could also be seasonally classified. Information from
the Sidney reach was the most extensive due to the USGS's longer sampling per-
iod, and the data were therefore directly comparable to the Yellowstone River
data near Miles City (table 57). Less valid comparisons can be made between the
Terry-Intake reach and the Miles City or Sidney segments because little data is
available on the Terry-Intake reach. Statistical summaries of data on the major
water quality parameters are presented in table 117 for the Terry-to-intake
reach and in table 118 for the Sidney segment. Data for the miscellaneous con-
stituents and trace elements were not seasonally classified, but they were sep-
arated by reach as shown in table 119.
The lower Yellowstone River had definite seasonal variations in nitrogen
levels. Extremely low nitrogen concentrations were noted during the warm late
summer-early fall season of high biological activity. High nitrogen concentra-
tions developed in conjunction with the colder temperatures of the dormant
winter season. However, no distinct downstream trends became evident from
Miles City to Sidney.
Phosphorus concentrations tended to increase downstream in the lower river
during the March-to-July period and remained constant through the remainder of
the year. Like nitrogen, phosphorus also demonstrated a seasonal variation in
concentration, but the higher concentrations were recorded during the high-flow,
high TSS periods of the year (March-July). At least some phosphorus variations
in the lower Yellowstone were probably correlated with alterations in suspended
sediment levels.
The river was apparently non-eutrophic and usually N-limited in all reaches
during most seasons; this was most noticeable during the critical August-October
period. During the winter, the median total soluble inorganic nitrogen concen-
trations in the lower river (including the median ammonia-N levels) exceeded the
244
HI i—
cu f—
0
0
,_
en
^
■o
0
o->
LO
O
0
CD
0
O
T
0
LO
LO
O
CO
CM
OJ
LO
LO
*r
O
«3"
0
LO
re
CM
CD
O
LO
CO
0
«■
co
CM
O
en
0
co
CO
*3-
CM
CO
0
O
CD
>. X
0
*r
O
O
LO
CO
'-r
CO
CO
CO
CD
0
CD
*3"
LO
«*
CM
CO
D E
LO
CO
en
lo
CO
to
CM
LO
0
CD
■"3
^
O
LO
CO
2: C
u->
O
LO
0
CO
O
en
O
'
O
0-1
r^
O
O
CD
CO
LO
£
CD
1^
*T
cd
0
v
CM
CD
CM
0
CD
"
LO
CO
CD
CD
J
O
-
r^
»
-
-
CO
-
ro
0
-
-
-
-
CO
-
-
-
-
-
-
LO
-
O
O
LO
^
,_
LO
O
ID
O
CO
en
LO
0
LO
cu
O
«=r
O
0
O
0
CD
O
00
O
2:
O
O
en
CO
CO
LO
0
CO
<*
CM
O
CD
O
LO
0
■r- X
ro
«=r
0
CO
CD
ro
CO
CO
CD
LO
LO
J- *a
LO
«»
CO
CO
CM
ex 2:
■~
■""
CO
■—
CO
A
•""
*"
co
'
t"*
CO
CO
•~
"*
CM
CM
'-
CO
CO
CD
CD
■-
jL
O
0
CO
0
0
^r
LO
0
CD
CD
O
CD
■cT
to
en
O
CT>
2: 2:
CD
0
LO
LO
*
O
0
CD
^
-
-3-
-
-
-
CM
CM
<d-
CM
-
*f
«3-
<3-
-
CO
-
-
*^-
-
-cr
CO
-
-
lo
lo
VO
^
TD
en
O
0
0
-=r
CO
LO
CO
O
<3-
CO
O
01
C\J
O
CO
CM
CD
CD
2:
00
O
CO
""*
LO
CO
**"
"~
CO
*""
LO
CM
CM
LO
CO
"~
■""
■""
CM
"~
O
O
CD
>1
0
1-
0
CO
LO
0
CO
O
0
O
O
s- <a
0
LO
<d-
CM
CO
O
01
0)
*—
co
CO
en
LO
<3-
CO
-—
CO
CO
r^
CM
CO
1--
■3"
CM
CM
•—
CM
•—
CD
O
O
si.
0
r^
co
0
0
Cn
LO
en
CO
CD
.a ■»-
0
CO
LO
0
0
CO
CO
e e:
at
>
«x>
0
^
LO
^
>—
CO
•—
CM
1—
LO
-—
CM
LO
CO
•—
«—
<—
■—
LO
O
O
CD
0
O
en
en
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
o^
CO
CO
CO
0
0
0
CO
0
O
CO
«*
CD
LO
LO
CD
CM
O
O
aj
0
CTi
CM
O
CO
0
CO
LO
OJ
CD
O
CM
CO
O
O
CD
0
O
0)
CO
O
<*
CO
.O X
CO
O
CO
0
O
0
0
O
*J-
0 ^5
•a-
0
^r
CM
CD
CD
<=r
0
CD
IO
CD
CO
0
*-
CM
CO
CO
LO
CM
•—
-—
CM
CM
LO
CM
CM
r->
^r
CM
<—
r-
•—
r-
O
O
O
+j
0
0
0
CO
LO
O
OS
CO
•3-
(Ti
O
LO
CD
CD
CD
LO
0
CM
CDE
CO
LO
00
^
CO
LO
1—
CO
O
CM
n
•—
r—
■^r
CM
•—
<—
r-
•—
LO
O
O
CD
O
C\J
_
CM
cr»
CD
LO
CO
^r
CD
CD
CD
CD
CO
CD
CD
en
3
O.
-Q
CO
0
S-
CD
cc
O
^3"
11
di
c_>
CD
3
CO
O
O
(_>
CD
31
•a:
O
<
O
""
*~
a.
LO
1—
*"
l_
O
CO
Ll.
O
S
f—
2!
St
1^0
3Z
1—
LO
CJ
ti_
2:
°-
245
O
lT>
in
in
O
■o
C*
a>
ON
to
en
in
O
to
in
0
*r
CO
OJ
c->
Cn
0
O
a*
to
O
«T
tO
in
0
z:
O
O
CM
O
in
to
0
CO
0
*r
ro
0
O
cn
O
>» x
lO
«*
0
en
CO
in
0
ro
in
tn
CO
to
to
i— *o
m
to
ro
«3-
CO
to
cn
CO
tc
CO
CO
3 s:
CM
CO
cr»
lO
to
*r
to
CM
o^
CM
CM
CM
0
0
CM
•~*
>%
^
O
:e c
^r
CO
0
en
en
to
CM
0
O
O
0
ro
O
0
O
£
VO
CM
CO
0
0
CM
"
Cn
CM
CM
d
<7>
"
^r
ro
O
0
O
CM
CO
CM
cn
to
^
to
in
CO
„
to
CO
CO
X
CO
CO
to
kO
to
to
kO
to
CO
0
0
to
00
-o
0
O
0
0
CO
Cn
*T
0
*3-
ID
0
0
0
0
kO
CO
O
VO
e:
0
0
00
lO
O
CO
CO
0
0
en
to
CM
to
CM
CM
*j-
CM
O
0
O
••- X
0
O
O
0
kO
00
to
s- <c
0
CO
OJ
O
CO
0
O
Q-S
ro
CO
to
cr»
tO
CO
O
0
<*
£
0
s- c
0
IT)
*3"
O
cn
to
en
<3-
ro
0
CD
en
lO
0
CO
en
CM
s: 2:
*
O
n
■a-
~
O
"
"
co
O
0
O
„
0
to
CO
0
z:
CM
<3-
CJ>
m
CO
CM
00
0
-0
0
CX>
en
CO
CO
O
CD
^-
O
tO
to
CO
2:
■**
"""
CO
CO
to
CO
"~
■""
■""
""
to
CM
CM
'*"
*3-
■""
CM
■"
CM
•~
O
0
O
>»
O
0
CD
to
0
r^
LO
cn
en
0
CO
co
to
to
S- «o
OO
0
O
CM
0
en
kO
113
0
O
0
.a s:
CO
CO
CO
en
CM
CO
O
0
O
OJ
"-*-
s-
0
Ol c
CO
0
0
0
O
<o
O
to
CO
CD
O
.Q -r-
CD
CO
en
O
E -Z.
m
0
«3"
*J-
«y
en
0
0
■3-
to
O
O
O
<D
O
■ZL
CO
r-
^J-
^
CM
in
<3-
r^
tn
CM
r^
r^.
CO
CO
r—
CO
<3-
00
r-
r^.
r^
,3-
CO
-21
**
co
ro
kO
tO
<3-
m
to
-O
cn
0
00
*3-
0
CO
0
O
*3-
O
0
.CD
lO
to
**
0
CO
CO
cn
0
CO
lO
*r
CM
cn
O
to
cn
O
CD
0
S-
0
O
OP
0
O
0
to
-d-
-Q X
en
cn
o->
0
to
O
in
<d"
CO
O rtJ
ro
C\J
0
CT>
ro
cn
CD
CM
cn
-•-> SI
CO
cr>
to
to
d
O
CD
O
■*->
■a-
0
0
0
00
CO
O
^3-
CD
O
CO
•<3-
O
O
to
ens
CM
O
■3"
O
O
O
<C
to
^_
CM
to
10
^
CO
tn
**
_
^
en
CM
CO
to
0
O
^
O
cn
to
to
ro
-Z.
tO
■3-
3
Q_
J=>
en
O
0
ad
0
CD
n:
0
0
0
0
0
^
<X
0
<
O
lJ"
a.
to
*"
l_
l_
a
CO
""
O
S
h-
Z
^
1/1
:c
•""
tn
CJ
tJ"
Z
246
Miscellaneous sites between
rerry and
ntake
Vel lowstone fttve
N
Miscel laneous
constituents and
total recoverable
metals
Hin Max Med
N
Dissolved metal
Min Max
Med
N
constituents and
total recoverable
metals*
Min Max Med
N
Dissolved
Min
metal
Max
Med
COD
16
11 64 20
Color
34
1 20 5
DOC
22
79 104 95
47
63 109 91
Fecal strep
22
5 700 27
MBAS
11
0.0 .04 0.0
NH3-N
Si
7
21
0.01 0.20 0.09
(1.2?)
5.8 12 9.8
55
10!
0.0 .26 .06
5.9 19 10
TOC
6
8 15 11
54
2.0 27 4.9
Ag
0
Al
7
.30 34 4.9
5
0.0
0.01
«.01
4
.45 42 11
9
.0001
.02
.0002
As
6
<.01 .014 .007
5
0.0
.007
.004
6
.003 .034 .007
5
.001
.005
.003
B
19
<.10 0.52 0.10
12
.070
.160
.145
9
0.30 0.10
80
0.0
.23
.15
Ba
2
.10
.10
<.10
Be
5
0.0
0.01
<.01
Cd
23
■ .001 0.01 i.OOl
3
0.0
.002
0.0
15
c.001 0.01 .01
S
0.0
.003
0.0
Cr
6
<.01 0.56 0.02
5
0.0
.01
0.0
7
0.0 0.05 0.01
5
0.0
.01
0.0
Cu
26
<.01 0.08 0.01
4
.002
.003
. on i
14
-.01 0.14 0.02
5
.002
.010
.004
Fe
23
.03 93 8.4
14
0.0
.08
.02
14
.04 53 1.5
81
0.0
2.6
.04
Hg
15
0.0 0.0017 <.0002
12
0.0 0.0008 -.0002
5
0.0
.0007
.0002
(.0046?)
Li
3
.02
.05
.04
3
.02
.05
.03
Mn
21
.01 3.8 .35
16
0.0
.02
0.0
(.26?)
15
.02 .97 .06
39
0.0
.12
.008
Ho
3
.001
.002
.002
3
.001
.003
.002
Ni
3
.002
.007
.002
3
0.0
.003
.003
Pb
25
<.01 0.100 <.05
4
.001
.004
.002
14
-.01 0.100 <.05
5
0.0
.003
.002
(.015?)
Se
7
0.0 .004 .002
6
.001
.003
.002
6
.001 .003 .002
5
.001
.002
.001
Sr
14
.06 3.1 .50
2
.59
.61
.60
8
.06 1.3 .44
V
15
<.05 <.10 <.10
6
0.0
.002
.001
6
<.05 0.10 -.10
3
.0003
.002
.002
Zn
27
<.01 0.47 0.04
6
0.0
.06
.02
14
0.33 0.05
5
.01
.02
.01
NOTE: Measurements expressed in mg/1.
«Co: <.05,N=2.
bBe: <.01, N=3, Co: 0.0, N=2.
CD0 expressed as percentage of saturation
247
reference criteria, and phosphorus was limiting with median concentrations below
its reference point. Throughout the entire year, 64 percent of the samples from
the lower river had phosphorus concentrations exceeding the reference levels,
and 47 percent of the samples had phosphorus greater than the EPA's (1974b) cri-
teria for eutrophication. None of the samples had nitrogen in excess of the
EPA's (1974b) criteria, and only 25 percent of the collections had nitrogen
levels greater than or equal to 0.35 mg N/1. Only 16 percent of the lower river
samples suggest eutrophy.
The high maximum grab sample temperatures obtained from the lower reach
during warm-weather seasons (22°C to 26°C) are in accord with its B-D? designa-
tion (Montana DHES, undated). The lower Yellowstone is a warm-water fishery
(Perman 1977), and except during the winter, median grab sample temperatures
tended to increase downstream from Miles City to Sidney. Dissolved oxygen con-
centrations and pH values were also appropriate for a B-D3 classification. Med-
ian seasonal pH values in the Sidney reach were measured at 8.0 units, and a
slightly lower median pH was measured during the runoff season in correlation
with greatly reduced alkal inities. With two exceptions (both from the Terry-to-
Intake reach with its reduced sample sizes), median fecal coliform concentra-
tions were also within the state's average criteria. Near Sidney (table 118),
only 12 percent of the collections had fecal counts in excess of the state's
criteria for grab samples, ^jery close to the 10 percent monthly leeway that is
allowed by state standards (table 8). Only 5 percentof the samples exceeded the
permissible criteria for surface water public supply (table 9).
In the Terry-to-intake reach, however, the somewhat higher median fecal
values and the extremely high grab sample concentrations obtained on occasion
(table 117) suggested pollution problems, possibly derived from municipalities
(Miles City, Terry, and Glendive). In the Terry-to- Intake reach, 38 percent of
the samples exceeded the state's grab sample criteria for fecal s (far above the
10 percent leeway factor), and 14 percent had concentrations greater than the
recommendation of 2000 colonies per 100 ml for public supply (USEPA 1973, NTAC
1968). Apparently the problem lessens towards Sidney with flow time and assoc-
iated die-off. In addition, although the annual median fecal strep concentration
of samples from the river near Sidney were low and did not suggest pollution in-
puts (table 119), the annual median fecal coliform: fecal strep ratio (2.1) indi-
cated municipal contamination and human wastes in mixed pollution (Mi 1 1 i pore
Corporation 1972). Consequently, municipal-bacteriological pollution is a mild
water quality problem in some segments of the lower Yellowstone with a subsequent
recovery further downstream.
Although the biological parameters suggested pollution inputs to the lower
river, this was not reflected in the oxygen data. DO concentrations were always
well above the state's minimum requirement for a B-D3 stream. Median DO concen-
trations were with 5 percent to 9 percent of saturation, and 67 percent of the
grab samples from the lower river had DO levels within 10 percent of saturation;
only 12 percent of the samples had DO levels less than 80 percent of saturation.
The seasonal variations in median DO concentrations were probably inversely re-
lated to seasonal changes in temperature. Low median DO levels were measured
during the May-July period (8.1 mg/1 to 9.4 mg/1) in relation to the high median
temperatures (15.3°C to 19.5°C). High median DO levels were obtained between
November and April (9.8 mg/1 to 12.6 mg/1) in conjunction with the low median
temperatures of this period (0.0°C to 9.0°C).
248
DO levels, the low TOC concentrations (the median value was near the nation-
al average for surface waters), and the low COD and BOD5 concentrations indicate
that there is no extensive organic input to the lower stream. For example, the
maximum BOD5 concentrations obtained from the lower river were only 5.3 mg/1 in
the Sidney reach and 6.3 mg/1 in the Terry-to-intake segment; much higher natural
BOD5 concentrations have been obtained from unpolluted streams in eastern Mon-
tana. Of the lower Yellowstone samples, 89 percent had BOD5 levels less than
4.1 mg/1; 89 percent of the high values occurred during the May-July runoff sea-
son. Much higher BOD5, TOC, and COD concentrations, and much lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations and percentages of DO saturation would have been expected
considering the marked organic pollution entering the lower Yellowstone River.
TDS concentrations and SC levels increased downstream in the Yellowstone
River from Miles City to Sidney during all seasons, as seen in table 120.
TABLE 120. Percentage increases in TDS concentrations and SC levels downstream
in the Yellowstone River from Miles City to Sidney.
Total
Dissolved Solids Specific Conductance
August to October 11.0 13.0
November to February 13.1 9.4
March to April 12.6 11.0
May to July 19.8 24.1
Downstream increases in salinity were fairly similar through a large part
of the year in the lower Yellowstone (August to April) and much greater during
the low TDS runoff period. The percentages given in table 120 for TDS increases
indicate that the loading calculations made for the Tongue and Powder rivers to
the Yellowstone were underestimated for the August-to-February low-flow periods
at 5.9 percent and 9.1 percent, and they were greatly overestimated for the
March-to-April early runoff season at 28.7 percent. The 19.4 percent calcula-
tion was fairly accurate for the May-to-July period. Annual median TDS concen-
trations increased by 13.8 percent from Miles City to Sidney, close to the 15.2
percent value predicted from the loading calculations. The calculated concen-
trations confirmed that the Tongue and Powder rivers have significant effects
on mainstem salinity.
Discrepancies between the actual and calculated percentage increases of TDS
might have been caused by incomparability of station data due to different per-
iods of collection. A shorter sampling period, and thus a smaller sample size
was obtained on the Powder River (table 109) than on the Yellowstone near Miles
City and Sidney (table 3). The downstream increases in TDS suggest a degradation
of water quality in the lower Yellowstone River to Sidney, and a large proportion
of this degradation appears traceable to the confluences of the Tongue and the
Powder rivers. However, the marked effect on the Yellowstone predicted during
the March-to-April high-flow/high TDS period apparently did not occur in the
mainstem.
249
The Yellowstone tends to become progressively more sodium sulfate downstream
due to inputs originating from the lowland sodium sulfate tributary streams. As
a result, Ca:Na and HC03:S04 ratios consistently declined downstream until the
river, for all practical purposes, became sodium sulfate in its Sidney reach;
annual median Ca:Na and HCC>3:S04 ratios were less than 1.0 in this segment. The
river's sodium sulfate character was greatest in the lower Yellowstone during
the March-April season in correlation with the secondary peak in mainstem flow
originating from lowland runoff (adding sodium sulfate, high TDS waters); the
river's sodium sulfate character was least obvious during the May-July runoff
period from the basin's mountainous headwaters regions, which had predominantly
calcium bicarbonate, low TDS inputs.
Salinity in the lower Yellowstone was also greatest during the March-April
period of lowland runoff, and, as a result, the inverse relationship between
flow and TDS-SC was poorly defined through this season. However, calcium-sodium
and bicarbonate-sulfate concentrations were not as dissimilar in the lower Yellow-
stone as they were upstream; magnesium, therefore, can be considered the secon-
dary ionic constituent in the lower reach. Fluoride, chloride, and potassium
had insignificant concentrations. Chloride levels were somewhat higher in the
Sidney than in the Miles City segment, possibly resulting from Powder River in-
puts (table 109).
In addition to the mild coliform problem described previously and the poten-
tial water quality problems from certain trace elements, the major features de-
tracting from water quality in the lower Yellowstone River were related to TSS
and TDS. The waters in the lower river were hard during the runoff season and
very hard between August and April. They were non-saline throughout the year.
Except for TDS, total hardness, and sulfate, none of the remaining dissolved
ionic constituents, including fluoride, appear at levels that would preclude
water use. Median TDS concentrations in the lower river from November to April
were greater than the permissible criteria and standards for public supply and
drinking water in both the Terry-to-intake and Sidney reaches (table 9). During
this six-month period, 81 percent of the samples from the lower river had TDS
levels in excess of 500 mg/1 . From August to October, 22 percentof the collec-
tions had TDS levels exceeding 500 mg/1, compared to only 10 percent of the run-
off samples. As a result, the lower Yellowstone, judging from salinity levels,
would be a poor source of water for public supply from late fall through spring,
but may have an acceptable water quality from May to October.
The high turbidities of the lower Yellowstone would further degrade and
probably preclude the use of the water for municipal supply during the March-
April season and also during the May-to-July period of low TDS levels. Median
turbidities during these two periods in both reaches exceeded the 75 JTU per-
missible criteria for public supply (NTAC 1968), and 82 percent of the grab sam-
ples from the lower river had individual turbidities greater than this level.
Thus, the August-to-October season, with its low TDS concentrations and low tur-
bidities, would appear to be the only season in which the lower Yellowstone
might be directly applicable as a public supply without extensive treatment.
Water hardness and high sulfate concentrations would also detract from the value
of the lower river as a municipal supply, as sulfate concentrations were oc-
casionally in excess of the recommended levels for this use (USEPA 1973, NTAC
1968, USDHEW 1962).
250
The lower Yellowstone River at present has an excellent water quality for
agricultural use, including the watering of all stock animals. The lower river
also has a medium-to-high salinity hazard for irrigation, depending upon season,
and a low sodium hazard. It has a Class I water for irrigation due to the low
boron (table 119), SAR, chloride, sulfate, and TDS-SC levels (tables 15 and 16).
Waters with TDS concentrations less than 500 mg/1 are generally those "...
from which no detrimental effects will be usually noticed ..." (USEPA 1976)
on plants after irrigation, including salinity-sensitive species. About 45 per-
cent of the samples from the lower segment had TDS concentrations in excess of
500 mg/1, which would indicate that the above description does not apply to the
lower Yellowstone much of the time. However, a significant number of samples
with such high TDS levels were collected during the winter season, which had
high median TDS values; the river usually would not be used for irrigation dur-
ing this period. The proportion of high TDS samples was much lower during the
irrigation season in correlation with the lower median TDS concentrations as
follows: May to July, 10.5 percent and August to October, 11.9 percent, as
opposed to November to February, 80.0 percent and March to April, 82.2 percent.
Therefore, effects of salinity on irrigation would be expected to occur mostly
during the March-April period.
Although the EPA's (1976) description of an excellent irrigation water ap-
plies to the lower Yellowstone, the water has annual median TDS values of 472
mg/1 in the Terry-to-intake reach, and 463 mg/1 in the Sidney reach. The lower
river, therefore, appears to have borderline quality for irrigation and is par-
ticularly susceptible to future degradation that might result in salinity in-
creases. For example, an overall increase factor of only 1.5 in salinity could
significantly reduce the lower river's value as an irrigation supply, particu-
larly during the August-October season, by greatly increasing the proportion
of samples with TDS concentrations in excess of 500 mg/1. Sensitive crop and
forage species would then be affected (table 17).
Salinity levels in the lower Yellowstone River should have mild, if any,
effects on the aquatic biota judging from the small percentage of samples which
had TDS concentrations in excess of 670 mg/1 (3.3 percent) and SC levels in ex-
cess of 1000 umhos/cm (2.1 percent). None of the samples from the lower river
had TDS and SC levels greater than the more critical 1350 mg/1 and 2000 umhos/cm
values for freshwater biota, and 30.5 percent and 32.3 percent of the samples had
TDS and SC levels less than 400 mg/1 and 600 umhos/cm. Most collections had TDS-
SC levels between 400 and 670 mg/1 and between 600 and 1000 umhos/cm (66.2 per-
cent and 65.5 percent) which, according to Ellis (1944), are acceptable levels
of salinity for the support of viable and mixed fish fauna in western alkaline
streams. However, the high suspended sediment concentrations of the lower Yel-
lowstone and the associated high turbidities could have a much more significant
effect on the stream's biota than would salinity, particularly in the Sidney
reach.
TSS-turbidity levels in the lower Yellowstone usually varied directly in
response to the magnitude of flow; extremely high median and maximum values
were obtained in both reaches of the lower stream during the May-July runoff
period. TSS concentrations in excess of 1000 mg/1 and approaching 5000 mg/1
were obtained in some samples, with turbidities in excess of 100 JTU. In the
Sidney reach, high median TSS-turbidity levels were also observed during the
early spring secondary runoff phase, and high levels were noted even during
251
the August-to-February low-flow periods. However, TSS concentrations and tur-
bidities were significantly lower in the upstream Terry-to-intake reach from
August to April. The annual median TSS-turbidity levels in the Terry-to-intake
segment of the lower Yellowstone (231 mg/1 and 70 JTU) would indicate a poor-to-
fair fishery, and the higher values in the Sidney reach (327 mg/1 and 74 JTU)
would suggest a poor fishery in the extreme lower reach of the river.
The high turbidities of the lower river could also affect the aquatic biota
by reducing light penetration and retarding primary production (Klarich 1976).
The high TSS levels of the water could also indirectly affect the use of the
lower Yellowstone for irrigation by reducing soil permeability and clogging
ditches and canals, which would lead to the extra expense of periodic dredging
(USEPA 1972). The lower Yellowstone River would thus appear to have only fair
water quality, at best, leading to curtailment of various water uses because of
its high suspended sediment levels.
Such high suspended sediment concentrations in the lower Yellowstone were
deemed likely on the basis of the high TSS levels in the Powder River with the
associated TSS loadings to the mainstem. Distinct increases in TSS were pre-
dicted for the reach of the river below Miles City, and comparisons between
tables 57, 117, and 118 indicate that TSS-turbidity levels did in fact consis-
tently and significantly increase from the Miles City reach, through the Terry-
to-intake segment of the stream. Percentage increases in TSS through the lower
river from Miles City to Sidney can be summarized by season: August-October,
764 percent; November-February, 88.7 percent; March-April, 287 percent; and
May-July, 48.2 percent. Annual median TSS levels increased by 108 percent from
Miles City to Sidney, slightly higher than the 81-percent increase predicted by
the Tongue-Powder loading calculations. These comparisons indicate that the
Powder does have a significant effect in degrading mainstem quality through the
introduction of suspended sediment, although the slight discrepancy between the
observed annual median concentration and the calculated TSS level indicates the
operation of other influential factors and inputs.
The Tongue-Powder loading calculations (6.3 percent and 13.2 percent) for
TSS were considerably less than the observed increases below Miles City during
the low-flow August-February period, and calculations were considerably greater
(863 percent) than the actual increase during the March-April season. The ob-
served and calculated (64 percent) values were similar during the May-July runoff
period. Marked downstream increases in TSS were observed during all seasons in
the lower Yellowstone River, with a significant portion of this increase attri-
buted to inputs from the Powder River.
As observed in the Powder River and several other streams, the TR concen-
trations of Al , Fe, and Mn were generally greater in the lower Yellowstone than
those from upstream sites on the mainstem. The maximum TR concentrations of Cr,
Du, and An were also high. Suspended sediment levels also increased downstream
in the Yellowstone in correlation with the greater TR values of the lower reach
samples. In turn, the dissolved concentrations of most of the trace elements
were low, and they did not suggest water quality problems. Only iron and man-
ganese indicated occasional water quality problems; a few of the samples from
the Sidney reach (less than 8 percent) had dissolved concentrations in excess
of most reference criteria listed in tables 9-14 and 19. Mercury was a more
252
continuous problem in the lower segment, as its median and maximum concentra-
tions exceeded the reference criteria for public supply and aquatic life.
In general, the dissolved levels of Al , As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Co, Cr, Cu, Li,
Mo, Ni , Pb, Se, Sr, U, and Zn in the lower Yellowstone would not be expected to
degrade the water quality in the stream. This may be said also of the stream's
miscellaneous constituents: Si had concentrations close to the national average
for surface waters; TOC-COD-fecal strep levels indicated no problems; ammonia
was at non-toxic levels but was at levels high enough to be a potential eutroph-
icant; MBAS indicated no synthetic detergent inputs; color was generally absent,
indicating no aesthetic degradation except by turbidity; and the insecticides-
herbicides were generally undetectable--species were detected in only 4 percent
of the analyses performed by the USGS ( 1966-1 974b) in concentrations ranging
from 0.01 yg/1 to 0.05 yg/1.
0' FALLON CREEK DRAINAGE
The Yellowstone River has a rather extensive reach about 150 miles below
the confluence of the Powder River before it leaves Montana and enters North Da-
kota near Fairview, Montana. No large tributaries enter the river through this
segment, but numerous small streams do (USDI 1968), many of which are inter-
mittent in nature. This probably accounts for the absence of distinct and con-
sistent increases in TDS-SC between the Terry-to- Intake and Sidney reaches of
the mainstem (tables 117 and 113). For example, the Terry-to-intake segment had
an annual median TDS concentration of 472 mg/1 , and the downstream Sidney reach
had the very similar value of 463 mg/1. 0' Fall on Creek, with its small flows,
is representative of the small tributaries entering the extreme lower segment of
the Yellowstone (table 121). Individual TDS loading effects on the Yellowstone
mainstem from streams of this nature would be expected to be small, although a
number of them could produce a cumulative effect.
Due to the distance of 0' Fall on Creek from the currently active coal fields,
and due to its rather inconspicuous nature, very little water quality information
is available on this small drainage basin. The state WQB, however, has made
several collections from near the stream's mouth near Fallon plus a few collec-
tions from the upper reaches of the creek near Ismay. The state WQB has also
obtained a few samples from two of 0'Fallon's major tributaries, Sandstone and
Pennel creeks. These data were insufficient for a seasonal classification, and
a flow-based separation of data from 0' Fall on Creek near its mouth failed to
reveal the occurrence of definite flow-related trends found to occur in Mizpah
Creek (table 116). The data on this small drainage were separated by stream and
reach, but were statistically summarized without the application of additional
classifications (table 121).
0' Fallon Creek and its tributaries are lowland streams, and this is gener-
ally reflected in the chemical composition of their waters. Like many of the
prairie streams, 0'Fallon, Sandstone, and Pennel creeks have a distinct sodium
sulfate water with high SAR values and dissolved solids concentrations; calcium-
magnesium and bicarbonate were the secondary cations and anion of the waters.
In most cases, calcium and'magnesium concentrations were closely equivalent, and
chloride, fluoride, and potassium were found in insignificant proportions. The
waters in the 0'Fallon Creek drainage were generally extremely hard (Bean 1962,
253
o
o
o
V©
nr
it!
a%
x>
in
CT*
O
co
v£>
CM
o
UO
>i OJ
o
tn
O
CM
CO
o
CM
o
1E
v
C\J
CO
^r
CO
CO
r"*
■""
^O
*—
CO
CO
CO
CM
ro
o
1. X
<U £
c
J*
01
<u c
o z:
■
1
1
1
'
1
1
1
'
1
1
1
1
1
'
1
Q)
u
o
o
o
O
o
o
O
UJ
CO
CO
o
CO
o
UD
"O
o
o
*T
o
o
o
O
o
tl)
«3-
«=r
o
CO
o
CO
UO
o
o
s
CO
o
CM
cd
a->
<X>
CO
«J3
CO
■«3-
o
o
O
o
cr»
CO
<=T
o
o
to
<X)
og
o
cd
a%
kO
o>
CO
o
o
<3"
CO
o
-* 21
CO
CO
CO
CO
CT.
cr*
cr.
KD
LO
<a-
m
o
o
o
01
<u
<_) <o
o
o
■3-
»x>
c c
o
LO
iO
CO
CO
O
cr»
o
o
CO
o
o
a> > ■•-
o
o
CO
O
cojj:
o
"JO
CO
<=r
CM
CTi
<D
CM
o
o
o
o
o •—
*-> a_
T3 i-
(V QJ
oo c z
CO
CO
CM
O
CO
CO
CO
ro
*d-
m
"03
•o
CO
O
CT>
o
aj
VO
ro
CT.
o
o
CO
ay
£
*—
«—
CO
•—
•—
CO
in
CT>
^
■—
U">
LD
CO
CM
f**
r*-
CM
CM
LD
•—
o
o
o
_^
<u
0J
o
o
o
CO
UD
o
O
CT>
c^
KO
cr>
CT»
CD
o
<d-
o
O
CT>
o
<_> <a
<o
CO
o
CO
o
s:
CO
CM
CO
»d-
U3
CO
en
o
O
o
o
.— c
o
<T3 O C
CM
UD
C\J
o
V0
O
CO
CO
O
o
CO
^T
CM
- ^ £
o
o
<x>
o
o
CM
CO
o
o
CD
o
o <o
s-
o cu
o
C\J
OJ
CM
CM
r-
,—
,—
o
CM
CM
CM
CM
o
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
.—
CM
C\J
_i c z:
CO
o
CO
-a
o
CO
o
O
kO
cr.
O
O
o
<D
■s^
o
U3
o
O
O
**■
KO
O
21
o
CO
CM
CO
en
CT>
CM
CO
10
kO
"^
LD
cr.
<—
ld
«=r
•""
10
O
o
CU
OJ
o
*=r
o
in
CO
r^.
O^
CNJ
KO
o
o
CO
o
o
o
CO
o
o <a
CO
O
O
CO
CO
o
^ 2:
KO
CM
ON
CO
CM
CO
•—
cr»
1
■**■
CO
'*-
**■
<X>
t~
•"
lO
ur>
■~
■~
O
o
o
o
CO
VO
<a >> c
o
o
O
o
o
*d-
o
O
o
CO
o
<=r
- E £
o
a*
CO
cr»
o
CO
O
CO
00
cn
o
CD
o
O i/i
S-
<u s_
Q. <0
CX. CD
Z3 c z:
"J3
UD
*3-
CO
lT)
in
UT)
U")
<3-
3
Q-
-O
CO
E
oo
Q
a:
o
a."
31
o
o
13
O
O
o
X
<C
o
<:
o
u.
k-
Q.
CO
*"
l~
l~
O
CO
Li.
O
21
l~
z:
i^
oo
x
uo
C_J
""
Z
a.
254
Durfor and Becker 1964) and usually slightly saline (Robinove et al .. 1958).
Judging by TDS and dissolved constituent concentrations, water quality was better
in 0' Fallon Creek than in its tributary streams, and improved towards the down-
stream reaches as a result of the 41 percent to 46 percent reductions in TDS-SC
levels.
Due to similarities in chemical composition, the water-use restrictions in
the 0' Fallon Creek drainage would be essentially the same as those noted in the
Little Powder River and Mizpah Creek, and for the same reasons. This would pre-
clude the use of the water as a surface water public supply due to the high TDS,
sulfate, and hardness levels of the stream. Also, various agricultural uses
and the aquatic biota could also be affected. Such restrictions, of course,
would be greatest in the tributary streams and in the upper reaches of 0' Fallon
Creek as a result of the greater salinities and dissolved constituent concentra-
tions.
The streams in the 0' Fallon Creek drainage were obviously non-eutrophic;
nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were well below the reference levels.
High TSS-turbidity levels were occasionally obtained in conjunction with run-
off events; this was most noticeable in the lower reach of O'Fallon Creek. How-
ever, the median concentrations of these constituents were not particularly
high, and they were not significantly higher than those in other prairie streams.
Turbidities occasionally may be too high for municipal use without extensive
treatment for dissolved and suspended solids, but the median TSS-turbidity lev-
els of the streams suggest a fair fishery.
The O'Fallon Creek drainage does not appear to be affected by marked muni-
cipal-organic pollution at present, as its BOD5 concentrations were not particu-
larly high. BOD5 values and fecal col i form concentrations were generally simi-
lar to the ranges obtained from Beauvais Creek and other small prairie streams.
The TOC concentration of a single sample from lower O'Fallon Creek (table 122)
also suggested no organic inputs entering the streams.
Like most of the small creeksin eastern Montana, O'Fallon Creek and its
tributaries have been classified as B-D3 streams by the State of Montana. With
the exception of a few runoff samples, fecal counts from these waters were gen-
erally within the coliform standards prescribed for this class of stream (table
8). In addition, the high maximum temperatures from the creeks were in accord
with the B-D3 designation, as were the grab sample DO concentrations. Values of
pH were also typically within the maximum-minimum, B-D3 criteria, although high
pH values were occasionally obtained, and one reading from upper O'Fallon Creek
exceeded the maximum standard. For the most part, however, temperature, pH,
TSS-turbidity, DO, BOD5, and fecal col i forms did not suggest significant water
quality problems in the O'Fallon drainage.
Nitrogen, phosphorus, fluoride, chloride, potassium, and most of the trace
elements monitored from O'Fallon and Sandstone creeks (table 122) were not de-
tected in levels high enough to detract from the streams' quality. The TR con-
centrations of As, B, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, U, and Zn were consistently below the
associated reference criteria. Of the metals, only the presence of iron and
manganese suggested problems, as median TR levels exceeded the criteria for
public supply-drinking water and aquatic life. However, the magnitude of the
255
o c
o o
CU
>.
-* CU
O ' *
CU T3 _3
i_> un ~~
Oo =
Li. O —
c 2:
.— 0 ~ ~ 0 ii^ ■— *-
0 000m OO 0
00.
.— .— .— CNJ O •— —
O 0 0 m CO C
■ . O 0 .
O — (~~ -T — ~-
O O O c\j CO 0
1 0 0 .
CU
Ol OJ
CU C 21
> CU
■O O
2 0.004 0.01 0.007
2 -.001 -.01 <-01
1 -- -- -.01
2 0.01 0.03 0.02
2 1.2 1.7 1.45
1 -- -- 0.06
2 .01 • .01 <.01
2 -.01 0.02- --
Cabin, Cedar, Hay,
and Seveninile creots
between Fal Ion and
Glendive
N Min Max Med
2 <.001 0.006 --
1 -- -- 0.49
3 -.001 <.01 '.001
1 -- -- -.01
3 -.01 0.03 -.01
3 0.42 1.9 1.4
3 0.1 0.17 0.15
1 -- -- .01
1 -- -- 0.35
3 • .01 0.02 0.01
-0
0
CU T3
l_> > X
<u ^- 2:
0
"O CU •—
C c 2T
2?
2 <.01 --.01 -.01
1 -- -- 0.67
3 <.001 <.01 <.001
3 <.01 0.01 <.01
3 0.70 1.9 1.2
2 0.20 0.26 0.23
1 -- -- 0.02
1 -- -- 0.14
3 -..01 0.02 0.02
c 0
0 2:
0 —
u_ i- 2:
0 CU
I- c
CJ ^ ■--
J 1)Z
0 CU
0 z
3 <.001 <.01 <.001
8 0.10 0.30 0.15
11 <.001 <.01 <.001b
I -- -- <.01
II -.01 0.04 <.01
11 0.02 17.2 0.95
1 -- -- <.001
10 0.03 0.77 0.05
2 • .01 0.01 --
1 -- -- 9
11 -.01 0.09 0.01
-0
>* <v
c <n 2:
0 =
<TJ X
Li_ S- «T3
- <o 2:
O CU
CU -* C
CL CU ■«-
0- 0 2:
2 --.001 <.01 <.01
1 -- -- 0.32
3 <.001 <.01 -..001
3 <.01 0.01 <.01
3 0.31 1.1 0.49
2 0.08 0.11 0.095
1 -- -- -.01
1 -- -- 0.13
3 <.01 0.02 -..01
0
i/» "01-3CUOC.0O C
«xcoo<_)<_>u_z:2:cl.i— >r~j
256
potential Fe-Mn problem, and that of mercury, cannot be definitely assessed be-
cause dissolved concentration data is unavailable.
In conclusion, the salinity-related factors--TDS-SC, hardness, sodium, and
sulfate--appear to be the major factors detracting from the water quality in the
O'Fallon Creek drainage.
TRIBUTARY STREAMS
In addition to O'Fallon Creek, numerous other small tributaries join the
Yellowstone River below the confluence of the Powder River (USDI 1968). Except
for a few collections completed by the state WQB on seven of the larger tribu-
taries, very little water quality information is now available on these streams.
The data were too sparse for a season- or flow-based classification; to increase
the data base for the statistical summaries, the streams were combined geograph-
ically wherever possible (major parameters are summarized in table 123). Trace
element data are presented in table 122.
Most Yellowstone tributaries in the lower drainage, like the mainstem, have
been classified as B-Do streams; only Fox Creek is classified as B-D2. These
tributaries generally have lower water quality than those in the mainstem; sam-
ples from some streams in the lower basin had the lowest water quality in the
entire Yellowstone region. For example, samples from Lonetree, Hay, Cedar, and
Cabin creeks had TDS concentrations in excess of 8000 mg/1 and specific conduc-
tance levels greater than 9000 umhos/cm.
The small Fox Creek tributary near Sidney, however, had high water quality.
Fox Creek is largely perennial, and it had a sodium bicarbonate water. It also
had low suspended and dissolved solids concentrations, low SC levels and SAR
values, and cool temperatures. Fox Creek supports a small viable trout fishery
(Karp et al . 1975), which is unique for eastern Montana and in accord with its
B-D2 classification (Montana DHES, undated).
The remaining small streams draining the region below the O'Fallon Creek
subbasin are intermittent in nature and have the sodium sulfate water character-
istic of lowland streams. The TDS, SC, and SAR values were high and more typi-
cal of prairie streams than those in Fox Creek. Suspended sediment concentra-
tions and turbidities were low except in Glendive Creek, where they were quite
high. This would preclude the use of Glendive Creek for public supply and as
a fishery.
Saline seep degradation of agricultural lands is becoming a prevalent pro-
blem in many areas of Montana, including the northern counties of the lower
Yellowstone drainage (Kaiser et al . 1975). This can affect the surface water
quality in other streams in such saline seep regions. Surface runoff and ground-
water return from afflicted areas could contribute to the high TDS-SC levels
observed in some streams in the lower Yellowstone area--Hay Creek in Dawson
County, Cabin Creek in Prairie and Fallon counties, Cedar Creek in Dawson and
Wibaux counties, and Lonetree Creek in Richland County. All five of these
counties have recognized saline seep acreages (Kaiser et al . 1975). The high
nitrate-N concentrations shown in some of the samples from the region (table 123)
257
0
m
00
in
UD
CO
CNJ
<NJ
Ch
CNJ
CNJ
0
in
00
co
0
VO
QJ 2:
0
a>
ON
on
^r
00
uD
T3
in
4J X
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-.--
!
1
1
■
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
1
•
•
1
'
1
1
*
01
£
O c
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1
,
OJ E
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
I
1
'
1
1
1
1
•
OJ
Ol
__i z:
"~~
O
■*"
*~
*~~
0
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
0
m
X)
0
CO
UD
CO
CO
UD
a>
CO
ON
CO
<d-
O
0
0
O
UD
X
^T
ON
CO
•—
•—
UD
**"
1
^
uD
"*
•—
m
CNJ
*
ro
en
^
O
O
0
=>n
01
UO
0
in
^
CO
0
3
CO
«J-
CO
ud
O
LO
O
00
«^-
CO
UD
0
0
^J-
O
2:
CO
CO
"d-
<3"
0
O
0
s-
OJ
co
O
0
en
<*
0
CO
UD
O
^j.
r^
CNJ
CNJ
ON
ON
in
O
en
O
0
0
O
a> 2:
CO
CO
o-*
LO
UD
uO
0
OJ
t-
0
x
0
u- 2:
m
CNJ
CO
en
en
CM
CNJ
CSJ
CNJ
ro
en
en
CNJ
ro
ro
ro
CO
OJ
CO
0
CO
O
O
^
CO
cn
CO
UD
CO
in
CO
O
ON
£
0
CO
CO
O
UD
O
"0 SI
CO
a>
ON
CNJ
in
UD
O
0
0
C
OJ
0
O
5
LT)
0
^
IT)
0
0
0
,_
O
a
en
<Ti
UD
ON
0
CO
in
CD
CO
CO
^d-
O
ON
0
O
2:
**
on
CO
10
CO
er»
CO
O
0
O
<u
CM
-
0
CNJ
s
tn
ON
CNJ
UD
*3"
O
0
CO
,_
,_
CNJ
m
(DN
O
O
<u 2:
^J
%
CO
£
^
«T
UD
CM
UD
,-1
0
on"
^
Sr
CO
CNJ
^
r^
^
CO
§
0
O
O
O
■0
OJ
0 z:
ro
CM
m
m
en
CSJ
CO
m
CNJ
CNJ
en
CM
co
CO
CO
ro
0
O
ON
0
<=r
CO
CO
VO
0\
0
0
0
QN
CO
O
ON
UD
ON
UD
0
o> 2:
0
CO
CO
CM
<*
-a cu
C 2
0
OJ
CD <U
m
0
0
O
0
in
0
0
O
en
^-
CVJ
0
uD
UD
O
c-
UD
«3"
cn
O
UD
CNJ
UD
a: -* c s:
CM
CO
uD
-3-
*3-
CO
O
U SJ
- QJ ,—
0
0
0
ON
0
en
<T>
CO
CNJ
_
,_
^
m
O
CNJ
0
0
a; cu c •<-
Ur- «3Z
0
<?r
^
CO
on
cr>
|
^
0
!
CNJ
0
CNJ
^
0
^
-
^
"
2
C^
O
O
0
0
-EC
ceo
• ^ OJ *—
jD > .—
03 a> tj
O I/1) u_ z
ud
r^"
"""
en
CNJ
0
CNJ
CO
3
O
9-
-O
0
ce:
O
0
3
O
0
O
CT>
X
d
C_J
•=c
O
u-
*~
=L
CO
l—
\—
O
CO
U_
c_>
E
*■"
z
^
CO
X
258
were also symptomatic of saline seep inputs to the waters, but they were not at
levels that would affect surface water public supply (table 9) and livestock
watering (tables 10-14).
The waters in these creeks were extremely hard except in some of the Glen-
dive Creek samples, and slightly saline. The saline seep-affected streams had
samples moderate to high in salinity (Robinove et al . 1958). These waters
would have a very high salinity hazard for irrigation and a high-to-very high
sodium hazard (Fox Creek would have a high salinity hazard and a low sodium
hazard) (USDA 1954).
The chemical compositions of the waters varied considerably. Calcium and
magnesium levels were usually fairly equal, although the Lonetree Creek sample
had noticeably high magnesium concentrations; this may reduce its value as a
source of water for stock. Gl endive Creek had low calcium-magnesium concentra-
tions and hardness levels, and Lonetree Creek had low bicarbonate concentrations.
Chloride concentrations were particularly high in a few of the samples collected
between Fallon and Glendive, further restricting the water's use for public sup-
ply, irrigation, and livestock watering. For the most part, however, chloride,
fluoride, potassium, and magnesium were minor constituents and did not suggest
water quality problems. Sodium and sulfate were the dominant ions in the sam-
ples.
High sodium (SAR), sulfate, TDS-SC, and hardness levels would restrict many
water uses, and such restrictions would be much greater in the streams with mod-
erate-to-high salinity. In fact, waters with extremely high TDS-SC levels might
be classified as unuseable even for livestock (Seghetti 1951). The major water-
use restrictions for most of these streams can be briefly summarized as follows:
1) For use as surface water public supply, all streams had high TDS,
sulfate (table 9), and hardness levels, and Glendive Creek had
high turbidities.
2) For irrigation, Fox Creek had Class II waters, and other streams
had Class III waters due to high sulfate and TDS-SC levels or
high SAR and chloride values (tables 15 and 16).
3) For the aquatic biota (not in Fox Creek), major effects were
evident with TDS-SC levels commonly in excess of 1350 mg/1 and
2000 ymhos/cm, and in the high TSS levels in Glendive Creek.
4) For the aquatic biota in Box Creek, some mild salinity effects
were evident, as TDS concentrations were greater than 660 mg/1
and SC levels were greater than 1000 ymhos/cm.
5) For livestock watering, sulfate levels were high and sometimes
TDS levels were high, except in Glendive and Fox creeks.
Apart from salinity-related factors (and TSS-turbidity in Glendive Creek),
most of the remaining major parameters did not suggest water quality degradation
or water-use restrictions. BODk concentrations were not at levels high enough
to indicate that organic pollution reaches the streams, and pH levels (with the
exception of one sample) and DO concentrations were within the state standards
for a B-D3 stream (table 8). Stream temperatures also suggested B-D3 waters
259
(B-D2 waters in Fox Creek). Fecal coliform concentrations were high in the
stream samples, and they were in excess of state criteria in several instances,
However, with only six analyses for fecals available, additional collections
would be necessary in order to fully assess the problem. Because of high sal-
inity levels, these waters are unsuitable for public supply anyway except in
Fox Creek.
260
Summary at sxc&tiaq aibcatuM
YELLOWSTONE RIVER MAINSTEM
TDS CONCENTRATIONS
The Yellowstone River in Montana shows an obvious downstream change in
water quality from its entrance to the state near Corwin Springs (from Yellow-
stone National Park) to its exit into North Dakota near Fairview, Montana.
Such downstream changes in water quality are common in many streams, and are
best seen in the Yellowstone by the increase in TDS concentrations towards the
river's mouth. Figure 3 shows the median TDS concentrations for various sites
on the river having adequate post-1966 USGS and state WQB records. Data in
figure 3 were grouped by month to correspond to the seasons of the year, a
high-flow period (May to July), warm- and cold-weather low-flow periods, and
the March-April spring season.
As indicated in figure 3, downstream increases in TDS occurred through
all seasons of the year along the Yellowstone River. At all sites, lowest con-
centrations occurred during the late spring/early summer runoff period. How-
ever, the greatest increase in TDS between Corwin Springs and Sidney was noted
during this high-flow season with a factor increase of 3.6 during May-July, and
between 2.85 and 3.15 over the remainder of the year. The greatest increase in
TDS occurred through the Billings-to-Miles City segment, which includes the con-
fluence of the Bighorn River. This increase was observed during all seasons.
Negligible alterations were recorded from Corwin Springs to Livingston, where
small tributaries with excellent water quality join the mainstem. Moderate in-
creases in TDS were recorded for the Livingston-to-Billings reach (including
the confluence of the Clarks Fork River) and in the reach below Miles City (in-
cluding the confluences of the Tongue and Powder rivers).
Differences in TDS levels between seasons were greatest at sites on the
lower reach of the river. Much higher concentrations of TDS were observed in
the March-April and November-February periods than in the late spring/early sum-
mer; intermediate concentrations were observed during the August-October season.
In the upper river, seasonal differences in TDS were much less noticeable, al-
though the high TDS:low TDS seasonal ratios were similar throughout the mainstem.
Maximum changes in median TDS at sites on the Yellowstone River above Custer
occurred between the high-flow period and the cold-weather low-flow season, and
ranged from factors of 2.0 to 2.2. Seasonal changes in TDS at sites on the river
below Custer ranged from factors of 1.8 to 2.0 and occurred between the high-
flow period and the March-April early spring season. Seasonal TDS changes oc-
curred at a factor of 1.6 in the river at Custer. Consequently, it may be con-
cluded that the effect of the Bighorn River on the quality of the Yellowstone
River was greatest during the early spring season.
CHANGES IN CHEMISTRY
Downstream changes in the Yellowstone River's water quality are also evi-
dent through alterations in the stream's chemistry (table 124). Near Yellowstone
261
700 -i
600
500 -
400 -
300
200 -
River Miles
900
800
700
600 500 400
Kilometers
300
200
100
Figure 3. Median TDS concentrations at various sites on the
Yellowstone River during four seasons of the year.
262
to
5-
c
.c
o
+->
4-J
S_
(TS
a;
S-
>
4->
c
cr
ci;
u
CD
c
C
o
o
u
+J
1/)
F
s
3
o
**•
O
00
co
un
CO
CM
LO
CO
co
CD
CM
CO
r-^
CO
CO
CO
0
CM
>1
CO
0
LT>
LO
CO
CM
=3
0
■"3
3:
>>
(13
s:
(0
O
O
CO
0
CD
*a-
r^
CO
Lf)
z
O
^T
r~
IX)
1 —
•—
CM
CD
CD
re
O
O
0
0
00
vo
CD
0
r».
CO
co
<X>
LO
, —
1
0
CD
CM
CO
CO
co
r-
CO
CO
S-
0
CO
1 —
CM
0
0
0
O
0
Q.
0
«=t
:r
-C
(J
s-
re
CO
0
co
>X>
0
r^
co
CO
CD
2;
Z
CO
i^-
IT)
0
CD
CD
r^
!»■»
rO
0
,
, —
r-I
,_!
O
O
O
O
C_)
re
■3"
O
O0
CO
^3-
,
CO
co
CO
vo
CO
LO
3
S-
-Q
00
O
CT)
0
VO
CD
O
CD
CD
CD
,
co
Csl
,—
0
r-
O
O
O
CD
O
Ll_
:r
S-
CU
JO
re
Lf>
0
CD
, —
0
CO
O
to
CD
a;
z
P~
CM
LT>
■^r
1 —
1 —
O
CD
CO
>
o
re
O
O
0
2:
0
<=r
s_
0
a>
00
1 —
<X>
CO
1 —
CM
0
CD
CO
CO
-Q
, —
r-.
CO
LD
CM
t—
O
CD
0
0
00
+->
0
CvJ
CO
CM
1 —
1 —
1 —
1 —
O
r~~
0
0
0
3;
+->
Z3
re
cri
en
CM
CO
r-»
CM
<X>
CO
O
CD
z
r^
*d"
1 —
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
3
re
0
O
O
O
O
O
to
CD
c
S-
c
>1
a.
0
+->
00
4->
CO
to
CD
-C
C_>
c
CD
c
S-
4->
c
>)
c
CD
to
>>
to
0
CD
2
+->
S-
to
cu
c
s_
>
, —
to
ai
&-
1 —
1 —
■a
O
Zi
>>
O
re
0
_l
CQ
t_)
2:
Ll_
2:
u.
00
263
National Park the river has a definite sodium-bicarbonate water during most of
the year. However, tributaries to the Yellowstone above Billings typically
have a calcium-bicarbonate composition, and this is reflected in the chemistry
of the mainstem which gradually becomes calcium-bicarbonate from Corwin Springs
to Billings. With river inputs below Billings, the water then tends to become
progressively more sodium-sulfate because Ca:Na and HC03:S0a ratios decline to
Custer. This, in turn, reflects tributary inputs to the mainstem because the
tributary streams below Billings tend to have sodium-sulfate compositions. This
alteration in the Yellowstone chemistry becomes wery noticeable below the con-
fluence of the Bighorn River, with its large volume of flow. The Yellowstone
River tends to retain its calcium-bicarbonate composition at high-flow periods
in the lower river from May to July due to the influence of the upstream cal-
cium-bicarbonate tributary streams which have their peak flows then. The sodium-
sulfate streams below Billings tend to have peak flows earlier in the year, and
this is reflected in the low Ca:Na and HCO^iSC^ ratios obtained during the March-
April season at some locations. However, in the extreme lower river below Fallon,
the Yellowstone River is mainly a sodium-sulfate stream.
CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY
Although there is a general deterioration in water quality and an alter-
ation in chemistry downstream from Corwin Springs, the water quality in the
upper Yellowstone River above Billings appears to be quite good, and suitable
for all potential uses. This quality degradation is primarily due to increases
in stream salinity.
There is no evidence of marked pollution inputs to the stream. None of the
concentrations of common constituents exceed recommended levels for human con-
sumption and use, for stock water, or for irrigation. Fluoride concentrations
were high near Corwin Springs due to the Yellowstone Park drainage, but rapidly
becomes diluted downstream in Montana. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are
usually near saturation, and BOD levels do not indicate organic pollution. Most
of the dissolved metals do not appear to be in toxic concentrations. Possible
exceptions are arsenic, apparently derived from Yellowstone Park, and mercury,
which had grab sample concentrations occasionally in excess of water use criteria.
The critical nutrients in the upper river are not generally at levels character-
istic of eutrophy, although the Yellowstone comes close to this condition in the
segment near Custer. Temperatures in the Yellowstone River above Billings are
generally comparable to those of a cold-water fishery. Of the water quality
parameters, the fecal col i forms and possibly the phenols occur at concentrations
that could indicate pollution problems. Concentrations of these two pollutants
occur in the river near Billings, which has a number of industrial and waste-
water discharges.
Although the water quality in the lower river remains generally good, it
shows a degradation due to increasing salinities which continues in the river
as it flows from Billings to its confluence with the Missouri River in North
Dakota; this is most obvious below the confluence of the Bighorn River (figure
3). A few specific parameters reach potential problem levels.
Temperatures in the river below Billings are typical of a warm-water fishery
and of a cold-water/warm-water transition zone between Big Timber and Bighorn.
264
Dissolved oxygen levels remain very close to saturation but occur in lower con-
centrations than levels observed upstream. BOD levels indicate no organic pol-
lution, and fecal col i form concentrations do not indicate water quality problems.
Dissolved metals usually do not approach toxic levels, but iron, manganese, and
mercury have dissolved concentrations occasionally in excess of water use cri-
teria.
There is no evidence that the waters become eutrophic in the segment of
the stream below Billings. The lower river's water therefore appears to be
suitable for most beneficial uses. Drinking water may be the only exception.
In the extreme lower segment of the river below Miles City, median TDS concen-
trations and sulfate levels exceed recommended criteria for drinking water (500
mg/1 and 250 mg/1) from November to April, the seasonal low-flow period (figure
3).
As illustrated in figure 4, turbidity and high levels of TSS may cause
water quality problems below Miles City. A definite increase in TSS occurs
downstream through all sites during the high-flow period with concentrations
in the river exceeding 100 mg/1 below Laurel. At periods of low flow, however,
TSS concentrations are typically less than 80 mg/1 above Miles City. A marked
increase in TSS occurs below this point through all seasons, and median TSS
concentrations exceed 100 mg/1 through most of the year below Fallon (below the
confluence of the Powder River). Such high TSS levels in the lower river de-
grade its quality and could restrict certain beneficial water uses, such as a
particular fishery or a source of public supply.
In general, the water auality in the Yellowstone River is best at upstream
sites and at high-flow periods, although the increase in TSS during this period
detracts from its value. There is a general degradation in the river's quality
downstream to Sidney, and TDS, sulfate, and TSS levels appear to be the main
reasons. However, there is no evidence of extensive pollution inputs through
most of the river's length. Water quality is generally good above Miles City
and suitable for most uses.
Below Miles City, sediment, TDS, and sulfate levels may restrict some water
uses because of the lower water quality through this segment. Nonpoint tributary
inputs of inferior quality are the major contributors to downstream degradation
of mainstem waters.
ASSOCIATED DRAINAGES
TDS CONCENTRATIONS
TDS concentrations were found to be variable among the tributary streams
of the Yellowstone Basin. High values were obtained in some cases and a wide
range of SC levels was measured, varying from 250 to 17,500 umhos/cm, depending
on the stream and season of collection. TDS concentrations were generally
greater in the primary, secondary, and tertiary tributary streams than at their
points of juncture with the mainstem of the Yellowstone River. For the most
part, TDS concentrations and SC levels increased downstream in these tributaries,
and they were usually higher in the smaller streams of any particular subbasin.
265
700 -i
600
500 -
_ 400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
600
May-
June- /
/
/
July
4
/
/
/
March—/
April //•
August-
September-
October
November —
December-
January—
February
900
800
700
600
500 400
Kilometers
300
200
100
Figure 4. Median TSS concentrations at various sites on the
Yellowstone River during four seasons of the year.
266
TDS concentrations in the streams of the study area were high and exceeded
the recommended public water supply and drinking water standards in many cases.
The waters in many of the smaller streams and in the Powder River were usually
slightly saline. Concentrations were consistently highest in the smaller
streams such as Armells, Little Porcupine, Reservation, Otter, and Pumpkin
creeks which have their headwaters directly in the basin. Values greater than
1000 mg/1 were typical. In some instances, TDS concentrations exceeded the
threshold concentrations for stock water.
Rosebud Creek and most of the larger streams had TDS concentrations typi-
cally ranging between 500 and 1000 mg/1, although the Powder River had TDS con-
centrations greater than 1000 mg/1. Of the other large streams, the Yellowstone
and the Little Bighorn rivers had the lowest TDS concentrations in the basin.
They were generally followed in order by the Bighorn River, the Tongue River and
Pryor Creek, tributaries of the Little Bighorn and Bighorn rivers, and Rosebud
Creek and the Powder River drainage.
SALINITY
Water quality in the Yellowstone Basin, judging by salinity levels, gener-
ally declined in an eastward and downstream direction. Quality was generally
inversely related to the size of the stream; that is, the smaller streams typi-
cally had lesser water quality. Numerous exceptions, however, became evident.
Some prairie streams, such as Sarpy Creek, actually showed downstream improve-
ments in water quality. Also, the west-flowing Bighorn River, one of the
larger streams in the Yellowstone Basin, had comparatively poor water quality,
and the smaller east-flowing Fox Creek had comparatively good water quality.
PH VALUES
Values of pH in the various streams of the basin typically ranged between
7.8 and 8.5 units. In some cases, field readings were above or below these
values. Values greater than 9.0 were obtained in a few of the smaller streams,
but readings outside the recommended limits in tables 8-14 were rare. With few
exceptions, pH values were well within the range recommended by the Committee
on Water Quality Criteria for aquatic systems (USEPA 1973).
TEMPERATURE
Stream temperatures in the basin generally varied from near 0 C in the win-
ter to between 20 C and 29 C during the summer. This range and the warm summer
temperatures are typical of warm-water habitats in the Northern Great Plains.
An extreme temperature of 28.5 C was noted in the Powder River; high tempera-
tures were more common in the smaller streams than in the Yellowstone River.
In general, warm-weather water temperatures are in accord with the B-D2 and
B-D3 designations applied to the tributary streams in the Yellowstone Basin be-
low Laurel (Montana DHES, undated). The only inappropriate classification, in
terms of temperature, may be Pryor Creek, with its B-D] designation.
2F7
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a critical water quality parameter related more
to biological and ecological factors than to human use. However, low DO con-
tent in surface waters may indicate that it is organically polluted and there-
fore unfit for human consumption. Groundwaters are often naturally devoid of
oxygen; waters lacking oxygen generally have a "flat" taste, especially after
boiling.
From a biological point of view, game fish require DO concentrations of at
least 5 ppm to reproduce, and they generally die if DO falls below 3 ppm (Salvato
1958). Montana criteria for oxygen in B-Di , B-D2, and B-D3 class streams are
listed in table 8. With few exceptions, DO concentrations within the streams of
the basin were at or near saturation levels during the period of sampling. DO
levels ranged from about 6.0 to 13.5 mg/1 ; the higher values were obtained during
the winter, with water temperatures approaching 0.0°C. As a result, DO values
in the basin were typically greater than the minimum Montana requirements for
salmonid propagation. The few exceptions were in the smaller streams, such as
Sarpy Creek.
ORGANIC POLLUTION
Consistently high DO values in the streams of the study area indicate a
general absence of major organic pollution in the basin. This is confirmed by
data from the numerous BOD5 determinations, typically less than 6 mg/1 in most
of the stream samples, but ranging up to about 11.5 mg/1. Even the higher val-
ues are not particularly high considering those taken from sewage outfalls. In
a well-operated and functional lagoon system, values were generally between 40
and 80 mg/1, but approached 140 mg/1, and, in some instances, exceeded 200 mg/1
in poorly managed or nonfunctional systems. Yegen Ditch in Billings is an
example of an organically polluted flowing stream with BOD5 levels between 20
and 25 mg/1 during some periods. Here, a BOD5 level of 11.5 mg/1 is not indi-
cative of a gross organic pollution.
The general absence of municipal pollution in the middle Yellowstone River
Basin is indicated by the bacteriological data. Fecal coliform counts varied
widely at any given site between sampling dates and between streams. This data
demonstrated a positive correlation with flow. Fecal counts were usually much
lower than the permissible criteria listed in table 9, but often were higher
than that level deemed desirable by the National Technical Advisory Board (NTAC
1968) for public supply. Because fecal counts were only occasionally greater
than the standards established by the State of Montana for B class waters, they
would not suggest water quality problems or indicate that extensive municipal
inputs enter the Yellowstone tributaries.
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION
The larger streams varied considerably in their chemical compositions, but
the smaller prairie creeks were usually sodium sulfate in character. Magnesium
was an abundant cation in almost all of the tributaries and small streams; it
often exceeded calcium on a weight and/or equivalence basis, suggesting dolomitic
268
formations in the basin. Generally, however, calcium was the major primary or
secondary cation. As a result of the high calcium and magnesium concentrations,
the waters in the Yellowstone Basin were usually extremely hard.
With a few exceptions, fluorides in the surface waters were below the upper
limits for drinking water, and should therefore not prevent stock or human use.
Chlorides, like potassium, were at negligible levels, and bicarbonate-carbonate
and sulfate were the dominant anions. The major exceptions were in Sunday
Creek and the Powder River, where sulfate exceeded the recommended criteria for
human use in many cases; in some of the smaller streams, both of the dominant
anions exceeded the threshold or limiting concentrations for livestock.
Like sulfate, sodium was a common ion in all waters of the basin and was
the dominant cation in many streams, but it exceeded threshold values for live-
stock in only a few samples. A review of the SAR data in the samples taken also
indicates that waters from most of the larger streams of the Yellowstone River
Basin--the Yellowstone, Little Bighorn, Bighorn, and Tongue rivers, and Rosebud
Creek--are safe for irrigation. These data also indicate that most of the smal-
ler streams (Tullock, Pryor, and Fly creeks, and the Little Powder River) of
the basin and the Powder River could have sodium hazards for irrigation.
Standards have been established (table 9) for nitrate in municipal supplies
according to infant toxicities. None of the samples collected from the streams
in the Yellowstone Basin exceeded or approached this limit. Phosphate standards
for public supply and drinking water have not yet been established by the EPA
or the U.S. Public Health Service. However, phosphate and nitrate even at such
low concentrations remain critical parameters because they play critical roles
in the development of toxic or nuisance algae and macrophyte blooms in surface
waters, which influence human use. Data on nitrogen and phosphorus from the
Yellowstone Basin indicate that none of the streams are obviously eutrophic,
and that most are nitrogen-limited. Locations most likely to develop eutrophic
conditions were the Yellowstone River near Custer and Sidney, the Bighorn River
near Hardin, the Powder River, and various small streams in the extreme eastern
portion of the basin.
TURBIDITIES, TSS, AND FLOW
Turbidity, TSS, and flow were found to be positively related. TSS values
showed wide fluctuations between dates and streams. For example, in the Yellow-
stone River TSS ranged from 8.8 to 992 mg/1 on different dates at Forsyth in
correlation with flows of 7400 to 33,800 cfs. Similar wide fluctuations were
evident in the smaller streams: Starved-to-Death Creek, 6.5-220 mg/1 and 0.01-
0.9 cfs; Pumpkin Creek, 13.0-1016 mg/1 and 0.6-42.7 cfs; and Moon Creek, 4.5-
482 mg/1 and 0.2-1.3 cfs. Rosebud Creek, Pryor Creek and the Powder River were
unusual to have consistently high TSS values through the lower reaches regard-
less of flow. Pryor Creek also had extremely high TSS values in some of its
samples (values of 1720 and 3436 mg/1). Consequently, extremely high TSS con-
centrations were also obtained in some of the streams of the lower basin; values
exceeding 1000 mg/1 were found in the Yellowstone and Powder rivers and in
Sunday and Glendive creeks. Extreme values of 62,800 mg/1 were obtained in the
Powder River and 66,000 mg/1 in Glendive Creek. In the Yellowstone, TSS values
269
of 2600 and 9450 mg/1 were obtained. Such high TSS concentrations obviously
degrade the quality of these streams, most noticeably in the Powder River.
Turbidities varied greatly within and between the streams of the lower
Yellowstone Basin. Such fluctuations were apparently related to flow, judging
from data from the Yellowstone River in which values varied from 6 JTU at 9300
cfs to 220 JTU at 35,100 cfs. During an extended rain in Sunday Creek, turbi-
dities varied from 4 JTU at 0.6 cfs to 210 JTU at 75 cfs. Although turbidities
less than 30 JTU were measured in almost all of the streams at appropriate sea-
sons, values in the Little Powder and Powder rivers were consistently greater
than 30 JTU. Fox Creek had turbidities consistently less than 10 JTU, possibly
accounting for its value as a minor trout fishery.
WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION
It may be concluded that because of high TDS and TSS concentrations in some
of the streams of the Yellowstone River Basin, the water quality in many of the
tributaries and associated waters are poor, with a variety of water-use restric-
tions. The main problems contributed by TDS concentrations are bicarbonate and
sulfate as anions and sodium as a cation; TSS levels are particularly detrimental
to water quality at high-flow periods.
Concentrations of iron, manganese, and mercury may detract somewhat from
water quality, but the remaining water quality parameters—dissolved oxygen,
BOD, bacterial counts, pH, temperature, and nutrients (nitrate and phosphate)--
apparently do not.
WATER QUALITY INDEX
The water quality index (WQI) of samples provides a valuable tool for as-
sessing the relative water quality status of a stream. The WQI, developed by
the National Sanitation Foundation (Brown et al . 1970, Brown et al . 1973, Brown
and McClelland 1974, McClelland 1974), has been applied to several of the sam-
ples collected by the state WQB from the Yellowstone Basin in Montana from the
mainstem and from numerous of the tributary streams (table 125).
Waters in the upper Yellowstone above Laurel can be considered good on the
basis of their WQI's (Brown and McClelland 1974), but they show a general down-
stream decline in quality from Laurel to the North Dakota border. Brown and
McClelland (1974) have developed the following relationships for the WQI: 0-25,
very bad; 26-50, bad; 51-70, medium; 71-90, good; and 91-100, excellent. In
these terms, the Laurel -to-Bighorn reach of the Yellowstone has water quality
ranging from medium (51-70) to good (71-90); according to the mean WQI, a good
quality is most typical. The same analysis applies to the Bighorn-to-Miles City
reach, although a few samples with a bad rating (26-50) were also obtained there.
In the extreme lower reach, a medium-minus classification (with a mean WQI
equal to 55) would best describe its type of water.
The quality of waters in the Yellowstone Basin as a whole ranged from bad-
to-good according to the WQI values. On the basis of average WQI's, the waters
270
TABLE 125. Water quality index (WQI) of samples collected by the state WQB from
various streams, stream reaches, and drainage areas in the Yellowstone Basin.
Number of
Points of Collection Samples Range of WQI Mean WQI
Yellowstone River above Laurel
Yellowstone, Laurel to Bighorn
Yellowstone, Bighorn to Miles City
Yellowstone, Miles City to mouth
Pryor drainage
Arrow and Fly creeks
Little Bighorn River tributaries
Little Bighorn River
Bighorn-Yellowtai 1 tributaries
Tullock Creek
Other Bighorn tributaries
Bighorn River
Sarpy and Armells creeks
Other small streams
Rosebud Creek tributaries
Upper Rosebud Creek
Middle Rosebud Creek
Lower Rosebud Creek
Tongue River tributaries
Pumpkin Creek
Upper Tongue River
Middle Tongue River
Tongue River-Miles City
Sunday Creek
Little Powder River
Mizpah Creek drainage
Upper Powder River
Lower Powder River
0' Fallon Creek
Basin Averages -- 57.2-78.8 68.8
Totals 241
Extremes -- 44.5-91.3 54.9-85.7
ranged from medium- to-good, with a medium-plus designation (a mean WQI equal to
69) most representative of the entire basin. The best water quality was obtained
from the Yellowtail-Bighorn tributaries and from the upper Yellowstone River
above Laurel. The lesser water quality was obtained from lower Rosebud Creek,
from lower Powder River, and from the extreme lower reach of the Yellowstone
River below Miles City. The tributaries to the Yellowstone and the associated
streams typically had medium-to-good water quality.
The water quality in Rosebud Creek, the Tongue River, and the Powder River
also declined to some extent downstream. In most cases, the tributary streams
had slightly lesser water qualities than the mainstem, but the Yellowstone River
had a lower quality than most of its tributaries at their points of confluence,
271
10
72.6-85.1
79.4
11
53.5-81.1
68.8
17
48.9-81.1
66.1
10
50.3-69.7
54.9
7
49.7-75.4
62.8
4
62.7-70.8
67.3
13
60.4-84.3
72.2
9
64.4-81.9
74.3
6
76.7-91.3
85.7
7
61.7-75.9
68.9
7
57.3-75.7
65.4
10
58.3-76.3
70.2
20
44.5-83.2
69.7
14
54.3-83.6
73.4
7
55.7-80.0
71.0
6
55.1-78.3
67.7
6
57.7-75.0
66.2
7
46.6-72.0
58.3
12
62.3-81.6
72.9
7
44.5-39.0
74.0
3
77.4-78.5
77.8
6
70.6-81.1
77.3
6
55.0-80.2
69.8
4
56.9-82.9
62.9
5
54.4-74.1
63.2
7
56.0-77.6
67.8
6
50.5-75.9
61.7
6
50.8-64.6
58.4
8
49.3-79.5
65.8
according to the WQI. On the basis of a nationwide comparison made possible
through the use of a standardized WQI, the waters of the Yellowstone Basin,
including those in many of the small prairie tributaries and the Powder River,
apparently have a fairly good quality according to the WQI.
However, the description of a good water quality in terms of the variables
considered in the WQI is obviously not appropriate to water uses of the Yellow-
stone Basin as outlined throughout this report. The WQI designation of Sarpy
and Armells creeks as having "almost" a good water quality (i.e., a mean WQI
of 69.7 compared with the standard of 71) and a better quality than the Yellow-
stone seems ludicrous, but this is apparently true on a national scale of com-
parison. The development of a more specific WQI that relates directly to the
Yellowstone drainage and its particular water uses and water quality problems
may resolve such discrepancies.
POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS IN RELATION TO WATER USE
The most obvious water-use restrictions throughout the Yellowstone Basin
would be directed towards using the streams for surface water public supply and
for drinking water. This is due primarily to the high TDS, sulfate, and hard-
ness levels (table 9). Turbidity and the occasionally high fecal coliform, iron,
manganese, and mercury concentrations could also restrict use for surface water
public supply and for drinking water during some or all seasons in several of
the streams. The unsuitability of water for public supply was found in almost
all of the smaller streams in the primary study area of the basin and in many of
the larger streams, including the lower reach of the Yellowstone River below
Miles City.
The waters in the Yellowstone Basin, for the most part, should provide a
good quality of water for stock animals (Seghetti 1951), and it should be excel-
lent for all types of livestock (USEPA 1973). In some cases, however, particul-
arly in the smaller streams, sulfate concentrations exceeded the limiting or
threshold levels of livestock, which could affect the animals adversely. In a
yery few instances, other dissolved constituents, e.g., magnesium and bicarbon-
ate, exceeded reference levels. Most commonly, TDS concentrations and sulfate
exceeded the theshold-limiting levels; these waters were considered fair for
livestock and not applicable to poultry. Highly saline waters termed poor and
unfit were collected from a few of the smaller streams. Their use would be
even more restricted. In general, though, the waters in the Yellowstone Basin
appear to be highly suitable for livestock.
Restrictions to aquatic life in the Yellowstone Basin were also caused pri-
marily by TDS concentrations. Temperature, of course, naturally regulates types
of fisheries in the streams of the basins by providing warm-water and cold-water
salmonid fisheries. The Yellowstone River gradates from a cold-water stream
above Big Timber near the mountains to a warm-water stream below Bighorn in the
lowlands (Berg 1977, Peterman 1977). There is no evidence that man's activities
through point-source inputs disrupt or alter these natural changes to any great
extent, except possibly through the industrialized Billings area (Karp et al .
1976b). Nonpoint influences would be much more likely in the Yellowstone Basin,
but these would be difficult to recognize and quantify.
272
On the whole, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature levels, and fecal coliform
concentrations were within the criteria and standards established by the State
of Montana (table 8) for stream designations applied to the waters of the
Yellowstone drainage (Montana DHES, undated). The effects of salinity and sus-
pended solids on the aquatic biota are expected to be much greater than the
influences of most of the other water quality variables. However, iron and
mercury had dissolved concentrations occasionally (and, in one case, the phenols)
in excess of the reference criteria for aquatic life in some streams and reaches,
including the Yellowstone River (table 19).
The effects of salinity on the aquatic biota would probably vary among the
streams of the Yellowstone Basin, corresponding to the highly variable salinity
levels of the region. In many instances, no effects or only mild influences
are anticipated, with TDS and SC levels less than 670 mg/1 and 1000 umhos/cm.
Ellis (1944) claims that these salinity levels are acceptable in western alkaline
streams supporting a viable and mixed fish fauna. This is probably true in most
of the large streams in the study area.
In many of the smaller lowland creeks, more adverse effects might be ex-
pected with TDS and SC levels greater than the values specified by Ellis (1944).
In a few instances, salinity would be more detrimental to the freshwater biota,
with TDS and SC levels greater than 1350 mg/1 and 2000 umhos/cm. Although salin-
ity in many of the basin's streams was not at adequate levels to exert a marked
influence over the aquatic biota, high suspended solids concentrations in their
waters could act in this manner. This could result in a degradation of the
stream's fishery potential (USEPA 1973, European Inland Fisheries Advisory Com-
mission 1965, Bishop 1975, Peters 1962) and a reduction in its productivity
(Klarich 1976) regardless of the low TDS levels. Many of the larger streams in
the Yellowstone drainage would be affected in this way, including Pryor Creek,
the Little Bighorn River, the lower Bighorn, Tongue, and Yellowstone rivers, and
Rosebud Creek. In some cases, especially in the Powder River and in certain of
the smaller streams, the dissolved and suspended solids would act together to
degrade the aquatic environment.
Salinity was at adequate levels to reduce the value of some of the waters
in the Yellowstone Basin for irrigation (Allison 1964, USEPA 1973, California
WRCB 1974, USDA 1954, USEPA 1976). But this influence and its associated re-
strictions would vary considerably throughout the basin because of the variable
TDS and SC levels among the streams. Some of the streams in the drainage would
have an excellent source of water for application to all crop and forage species
with minimal risk, and other streams would be unsuitable for a variety of plant
types, particularly the salinity-sensitive species (table 17).
Overall, restrictions on water use are due to the high TDS-SC levels and
their high sulfate concentrations rather than from high boron, chloride, or SAR
(sodium) levels. The concentrations of the various trace elements (tables 15
and 16) generally do not reduce the value of a particular water for irrigation.
The Powder River drainage and a few of the smaller streams have a high sodium
hazard for irrigation because of the water's high sodium concentrations and SAR
values, and its high salinity hazard. But in most instances, salinity is the
major deterrant to irrigation, and the better water quality for irrigation is
usually found in the larger streams which have lower salinity levels.
273
00
S-
rd
qj
CO
■!->
rn
S-
-;
<1>
>
m
C
cc
-^
(1>
C
c
o
5_
+J "O
oo
3 -O
O
'_
i —
03
CU
>s
>~
i
c i i— i cd
i- 3 (O C (O
CD <—
o
J2
E
.,-
a
-S=
in
ro
en
s-
&-
ra
4->
T3
'~-
CO
_z
T3
C
CD
T3
a>
s-
QJ
=3
c:
o
'~
X3
O
-<->
_c
<_>
0J
+J
en
I/)
^
O
rO
_i
CQ
ro
a:
u_
3
O) T-
o
3 Qi
r- S-
-l->
CD <D
CD s-
-O >
.O (1)
■o
00 Oi
oo 3
CD
0) O
•f- S-
■r- O-
s- ai
S-
re -a
f0 0)
+-> 3
+-> 1—
3 o
3 +->
.O O-
JO +->
•i- -i- CD
en r—
+->
(I)
<n
c
?
-t-J
O
r —
-u
c
a>
ro
ai to i — to
o
CU «r- •«
3 re
S- re oo
re
<_) E -^
_l s-
QJ
CU CU
CD
>■
>> S- CD
3 -O
i— s_
O 3
U_ •" o
r— O
'—
s_
CD O-
QJ
"O CD oo
JD
>
c > ■—
<C -r- I—
OO 00
q:
a: cd
CD CD
3 E
<z.
o c C
s- s-
<*-
s- s_ <:
re re
o
i.
s- o
+-> ■»->
_cr
CD
■=£ -C -o
3 3
en
>
CD C
-Q J3
••>•!- «J
CO
an
CD CQ
s_ s-
CD >, +J 4->
QJ
0)
re •« a.
c
=3
C 00 i.
CD CD
-M en •■- cd re c ^
re -o r—
3 oo
3 CD
■»->
O ^
o >-
S- 3
r— CD
CD -Q
i— CD
r— CD
D--r-
CD S-
CD -C
Q. S-
CD >>
3 +->
O T-
4-> oo 3 I—
S- 3 CD O
O -Q ■<- ■— •■
>,•■- S_ i— CD
i- i- re cd cd
a. +j +-> >- re
274
I in c -i-
S-
3 -*:
•r- J-
cn
CD
ro >,
(U E
1
CD
X CD
C -t->
+-> CL
in ro >>
C/l
CD
>
-,- CD
CO
+->
3 S-
1/1
O "O CD
i-
C
i-
S_ S_
ro CD
+J
^D ro
QJ
Q> •«
Qi C
dJ
O
D£.
CD
+-> O
E 3
■« S-
1- IO
3 i_
Ol "O
>>
+->
>
cu cd
in CD
_l
S-
t.
CD CD
S_ X ■<-
e:
in
CD
c in
S- c
CD >
+J .«
ro
C >
CD +-> OO
i
3
3
QL
s- .—
0
-!->
O T-
3 1
CU
O
cr>
0 •—
•» r—
i- Ol
At
C oo
3
1— Dt
0 3S-
c
c
C
X CD
ro
CD
i- -X
X
1— O CD
o
0
S-
cn E
O) •«
+-> CD -^
CD
O CD
1— i-
r— >
4->
0)
r—
0
S- ^-^
3 3 CD
S-
-C CD
t_
1— CD
■O CD -i-
10
>-
_C
CD <C
3 "O
in
J3 cn cu
<_>
CD J-
4-1
ro T3
C X Cd
2
cd
ro 3
CD
•r- C S-
•1- O
E 3
ro
O
in
S- "O
_1 X
CD
s- 0 0
3
CO
QJ
in 0
+J CD
1/1
CD
CO
CD C
CD
ro
4-> r—
O
J*J
C
O.
CD CL C
cu
.c ro
3 00
c
S-
c
." O
O
<— cu 0
dJ
S-
s-
+-)
O O
C S_ CD
S-
s- 0
+J
_v CD
-0 0 +->
>-
s-
r0
CD
0 >,
1— Ol
ro
S- CD +->
<
CD r—
10
(U ^~
"O X 1^
ro
+J
CL
Q.
CD
S-
O Q-4->
> r—
3
CU ■*->
•r (US
-t->
3
Q.
••> S-
X S-
-O
x ao
•1- 3
O
S- -(->
cu
E— O
10
3
X
3
S- ro
CD
CD 3
CD
C£ I—
C_> -r-
CD
OJ
XI
CD i~n
in Q_
c
1- >>
^
_l
ro
•" S_ r—
S-
>
CD CL
0
CO •-!—
ro
C "O
(D X)
c
-iZ CD CD
s-
S-
-t-J
JS£
•r- 3
in xi
+->
I- C
>-
3 •"
CD > >-
ro
+->
CU
cc ^~~
S-
CD CD ■!-
c
O ro
XI ^«i
ro
CU T-
+J
"O
CD
J>£
ro a)
ro
1 T— (/>
X
CD CD
S-
s- a; s_
3
-0
3
S-
C CD
+-> X
U_
■P S. in
CD •>
in CD "O
C_3 CD
X
c
X
l_)
S- CD
3 +->
■»-> ro O
O
•1- in
(0
O S-
ai 3
ro
CD
0 s-
xi
O
•<- -t-> CL
+J
CD n
Eao
c
>, 3 0
S-
in
2
-C c_>
•1- +->
_I 3
ro
in
0
ro CDf—
-l->
S_
O
O
CD
t- Q--0
_Q .*
in
i- S_
s- c
■0 C
OJ
CC
s_
•,- CD
+J <D
c
• -•1— _*:
cn cd CU
. #*
CD -r-
1 —
C O •"
>
S-
CO en
0
ro
r- S- CD
c
3
i/>
CL^i
ro
3 h- S-
<
rO
CD X
CD ■!-> CD
0 c
^z
CL CLU-
00 CU
re
cc
>,
S- CO
C CD
S-
t. s_
r— CD
<D
3 E
S- >
+J
+J
CD
O — -
CD
3 1— O
+->
GJ
3
O
•" CU-r-
3
c
CD
3 +->
+J
"O
ro t-
••< 4J
S.
.».o_
-V 3 QC
o >,
s-
0
CD
O CL
in ._*:
3
_l ro C
CO
s- 0
O
c
CD O
r- 4->
0
(0
.*£
1— CD
3 CD
O
1 +-> ro
1
CD oc
s_ .»
_^
CD 1— S-
X
in
c
QJ
O
O CD
D_
CD 3 E
cu
>
1/1
O in
OJ
S- CD
CU o
CD
CD
• 1—
OJ
•« X
r— S_
COO
c
•1— •"
1 —
-C CD
OJ
0 ---o
>-
ro
S-
J^ CD
.— O
O r— 3
0
at a.
cn-r-
S-
^ 3
1 in
ca
S-
l_J
<D~ —
CD
l/l
+-> I—
+->
rO
CU
•r- S-
0
in CD O
c cu
2.
■0
CD
>- "O
CD
in CD CD
in
c 0
E CQ ro
•1- CD D_
S- i—
CD
>>
S- i/l
3
3 >- c
3
S- Ul
c
■4->
.c
ro S-
O T-
3
S-
ro
O CD
1 — XI
S_
O 1 •t-
O
0^-
e(
3 3
ro
> O S-
x 2:
-P
O
0 -a
1— CD
ro
1— C CD
-C
0 X
a.
3 CD
CD
-l->
>>
CI
>> J-
ro in
+->
■— S- C
CD in "O
r>4
ro "O CL
1- O
CD
s-
3
r— rO
E O
3
CD O ro
CD
•1- CD
C
CD S-
CU 3 Q.
DQ +J
_J
X
Q.
1/5
U_ +J
uo at
X
>r I
>-
CQ •!-
ro
x -i-> 2:
CQ X 3
•r- S- CL
-
>
<_) CD E
-<L
3 3
CU
cr
1/1 on
Cb
'_
1-
CD
CJ
QJ
•^ -0 -— ^
-O
s: c E
c
3
ro ro
0
C
O -O
c_
+-> S-
CD CD
ro
QJ
in CL.C
Ul
jr
S_ CL+->
4->
CD 3
O
>> 3
3
s: ■•> 0
O
1 ^^ 1—
-j:
CD CD CD
OJ
QJ
C CD X
OJ
-C
O S-
k
+-> CJ CD
C_J
<yi
i-
in 3
Qy
QJ
3 -0 enr
+J
O 3 C
It
'_
</)
1— X 0
a,
ro
3
■— CD I—
M
+->
CJ
CD in
3
>- O CD
S,
JQ
-a
OH r—
IT
T3
i.
"3
s- s- -0
s_
|J
CD CD -i-
OJ
> cl E
>
O
QJ
1- CL
c:
t-
Qi 3 CD
Di
O
3
X
+J
ro
c ■« +->
s_
in
_l
S_ J*.
0
3
O CD +->
T3
O
C
-C CD O
3
CU
CD S_ C
O
QJ
•r- O '
Ol
QJ
3
CQ
>-
+J
>> CD
.#»
QJ
i- ro 3
_z
JD
CD "O CD
CD
i —
3 c c
OJ
ro
■O
O 3 O
5-
E
—1 00 (—
O
00
rc
in
in
X X!
3
s-
10
rd
N
ro
3
sz
o_
E
-C
E.
+J
ro
1 —
275
S-
•(— 1
CD
«T3 N
•-■♦->
4-> 1-
s- +->
3 s:
CU o
■o o
d) i/l O)
CD CU CU
fO -r- S-
W S-O
+J
4->
+->
+J
I/I
tO
to
to
3
3
2
s
O
O
o
o
^*r.
cu
CD
CD
CU
cu
CU
S~
>-
>-
>-
>-
<_>
c
CU
1
• r-
s- c
S-
c
CC
o <o
3
^
.c E
fO
o
s_
en o
_!
-C
QJ
•r- 3
cn -a
CO
C
3
en
CU
00
c
s- c:
cu
Ci-
CU -r-
3
3 cn
+-»
S-
S-
O C
cu
QJ
CD
i— <T3
-Q
>
3
ZC
o
to
os
-^ •"
cu
QJ
cu to
J-
cn
cu cu
S-
s-
QJ
-^
ra
S- cn
oj
ro
T3
QJ
c
<_) rO
>
+->
3
QJ
c
3
O
5-
re
>>•>-
Cxi
JD
Cl
cj
(.
i — ro
■a
Li_ S-
i~
s_
QJ
C
T3
CU
+->
JC
c
-a
+J
-i^
o
J- CO
3
cu
a.
CU .—
o
c
3
E
i —
> 1—
a.
o
o
3
n3
•■- cu
+->
Cl
u.
Oi E
S-
to
QJ
-
S-
CO
3 JQ
o
cu <=c
CL
o
uo
cc
CL
XJ
CU
o -a
Z3
C
^
+-> c
cu
ro
S-
QJ
to ro
>-
ra
QJ
3
to
S-
+->
s.
o >•,
-^
S-
aj
3
C_J
r— Q_
QJ
cu
+J
n
r— S_
QJ
x:
t/1
jrz
cu re
<-
4->
=3
^.
rd
>- IT)
O
O
o
4J
CL
.1— 5-
QJ CU
>- "0
3
> 1- CU -C
CU cn
S- -r-
(J CO
o -o
o -a
O
O
•r- i.
•i- s-
.— fO
i— (0
-l->
-Q T3
-O. T3
n
O
3 C
3 C
3
cu
a. re
a. n3
Q.
■1-3
+-)
+->
CU
re
• to
• to
s.
OO
LO
OO
S-
• cu
• CD
QJ
QJ
ZD O
ZD O
ZD
U
+J
c: +->
cu >—
to ro
CU i—
to ra
1— r— "O
276
•r- S- <B
•i- >
■r- CJ S-
o: d (l)
cn 2
ceo
S- O r-
C7> i-^~~
•r- CD >,
O »l-
i~ t— <_>
CD
O on CD
,— CD •—
- Z £
CD +-> CD
■1-3 3
S- -Q Cn
IO-r CO
-4-> S- O CD
3 4->H •« J=
-Q -^ 4->
•i- i— "CD
r- S-
rO CD
S- >
O -r-
c
o s-
i— CD
r— "O
rt3 3
u_ o
s.
S- JD
S- T- >, CD 3
+-> 3
•l_
m
CD T-
+-> (T3 i— S- O
oo JD
s_ .«
>
Q. S-
+-> -Q O ■—
(T3 -r-
fD -— «
o.+->
C 3 -r- CD
CD S_
+-J 00
D£
3
s- o to .c -O
+->
00
3 ^
CD
O i — 00 (T3
S-
JD CD
QJ
•« 3
x: i — o o. oo
J*i CD
CD
•r- CD
C
S- CT)
CO CD Q. Nl CD
CD S=
>
S- s-
o
CD C
•1- >- -I- -1-
CD O
+-> o
+J
> o
co i -s: s-
S- +J
S-
ul
•1- I—
C -M <T3
(_> 00
C -^
3
Csl
CD S- O. •» +J
2
s-
s- o
O
1 —
■— O CD S- 3
>> o
CD
o o
C i —
4-> -C O CD -Q
CLr—
-o
-C r —
S- IO
+-> cn X > •!-
S- .—
3
enr—
CD
O E
•1- -r- CD -r- S-
<o cd
o
•r- 3
>-
.c oo
_l CQ-— C£ +->
CO >-
Q_
ca K-
r— -i- 4-> 3
U. r— O O
O S- o
i— S-
CD CD "■
>- "O >>
3 -i-1
r— O 1-
.— Q. O
(O
E -o oo
oo C CD
(O .— s-
•r- CD
>, c s: >
PS. I v
•r o (uq:
<_> -C 3
cn cn s_
oo •!- c: CD
CD co o "O
r- I— 3
•i-- CD O
-t-> c:
o to CD
+-> c i—
HI S- -P
oo CD CD +->
S- 3 > f-
CD +->•>- i —
>, cd cc
2! jO
I CD S-
CD 00 3 CD
C CD Cn >
O •«- C -r-
+J i- O Oi
00 (O (—
3 •»-> v.
O 3 S- CD
r— -Q CD "O
r— v- O- 3
a) s- ao
>- +-> 3 Q.
>> CD
CD CD
.— S-
+-> O
CD CD
3 Q. 1—
r— CD 1—
277
r— i-
a> a>
(/i
5- >
3 T-
(O Ql
<v
—I
E
1 s-
c
oj oj
<
c -a
o 3
-s^
+-> o
s-
00 Q-
o
2
1-
I
E
=1
O 4->
1- C
>^
QJ
l/l
ra
3
c
o
S_
a)
CO
+->
(T3
n3
u
3
>1
• r-
S-
QJ
<u
%-
4->
03
t-
s-
o
JT
U
CD
u
-C
c
3
OJ
i-
a>
OJ
i/i
M-
o
O)
jz
^
4-J
"O
a>
a>
C
4->
fl
ro
co
00
""-
(O
OJ
on
J=
i-
+->
QJ
+-> -o
a;
OJ
E -o
<T3
OJ
5-
OJ
ro
<_>
Q.
X
a>
>i
3 1- -i-
S- -i-
4-> E
•r- C_>
+->
y» o
U
•r- >>
>>
S- r-
-!-> +->
UJ r—
CO C
I— <o
OJ OJ
O 3
a: +J
278
o
c
i_
jr
03
CU •-
Ol
-M S-
4-> CD
cq
in
CU O >
Ol
S-
CD
3
»Q£
jr
S-
(O
C
+->
rt5
1
03 i.
+->
E cu
c
3
c
0 x>
O)
-O
cu
3: 2
Ol
Ol
0
3
S-
2
en a.
+->
+->
+J
£Z
0)
CU
•r- CU
_Q
cu
-Q
CTlr—
3
c -t->
in
en
in
ro +->
CU
c
cu
:c -i-
0
_i
^
h-
S-
. *
ro
(O
_i<; ...
■M
1 —
-l->
CU in
3
1 —
3
CU -^
CU t- C CU
2 CU 3 "3
O 2 Q- S-
■—O T3
E 3 c -
oo o ro o
•1- >
.»
X
A3 ■<-
in
1— CU
s- a:
CU
■0
<0
S-
S-
E S-
-C CU
10
in cu
ro -a
•»->
>
o- 2
3
NJ O
XI
-V 5
•r- Q_
cu
s:
S-
cu s-
cu
-I-)
i- cu
• « -C
0 -0
-i£ +->
cu
2
cu
3
in 0
CU 2
en
1— a_
s- 0
c
O r—
0
cu cu
CU
1—
E -c
£Z -O
in
S- -t->
-^
<=£
-^£ in
CU
2 —
Q. CU
cu
n3
-^ O in
E T-
S-
E
i- r— _*
3 S-
0
in
0 CU CU
Q. 03
t-JD (U
+->
cu
S-
S- 3
>
^
■»-> in u
cu -o
CU
in cu
CLt-
T3
cu
cu •■- cu
Q. S_
C
S-
2 S- >
3 4->
0)
C_>
••>+-> -a
•" CU C3
n
-*: 3 c
cu c
CU JD CU
en O
-0
CU t- 1—
IT3 +J
c
cu
S_ S- CJ3
c in
(O
E
(_) +J
■<- 2
S-
JxC
■0
fO 0
X
<C
CU
>id) c
1- 1 —
0
cu
CL C ro
■0 1—
u_
-^
s.
s- 0
cu
s-
<_>
fO +-> X
in >-
+->
0
00 in 0
Q.
M-
x:
2 U.
cu
ia
S- O
cu <—
0
-!->
Q.
CD r— +->
E ro
X
in
rsi
Cr- Q_
t- E
<u
IT3
r—
Q- CU CU
<c in
LU
^
ZD >- O
!—
i)
aj
ro
t.
E 0
in
>
ia
in -0
CU
!=
=:
(.
U)
i-
rC
V
*->
>
3
c
X)
t.
rr
0
S-
x:
S-
+->
en cu
TJ
c
DO
3
'-
O
0
3
DL
_c
O
cr
1
cu
CU
CTj
-O
4->
4->
CU
in
•f—
cu
+->
♦J
S-
. n
T^
-^
+J
(U
3
OJ
s_
ja
s.
0
ej
c
S-
-l-> "O
E
3
CU J3
c
a>
_^
c
i^
OJ
+J
0
cu
l>0
c^
s-
3
<_>
O
S-
cu
>>
1 —
3
1 —
a>
0
, —
cn-r-
0
cu
c: +j
JZZ
•1- ro
in
XI
+J X!
(i)
■r- C
5.
m
E cu
jr
in
•r- E
+J
1— E
F
^— O
s-
O
I
at
3C CU
'^1.
a.
CL S-
279
•■- c
i — to
CD
1>
'-
en en
■••to 1-
<— <_)+->
i— cu cd
r- 2 C
CU CU
a. cu
o. s-
cu cn-o
$- •■- 3
<_> CO -O
re cu ai
<v cu 2
oo 2 O
4-> i—
IHJ-O S-
•(-> c cu
(1) D 3 >
<T3 +J i/) S-
s- cu
cu cu cu "O
c c: > 2
o o -r- o
-»->+-> s- a.
in in
S S S- a;
o o <U r—
t— i— "O -t->
r- r- S +J
CU CU O 1-
>- >- Q. r—
C CD S-
O i- cu
I— s- -o
<e 3
f— +-> o
r— 3 a.
•r- CU
S- i—
4J +->
S- .— cu .—
i— i— CD
i— .— r— CD
•i- 4->
-a cu -r- •■- -i- -i-
c+->
•i- c
r— O
<a o
i/> —
280
<T5 ■« S_
I in n
I -*: "O
en QJ 2
0)0)0
•i- S_ Q.
>> oo
D- O)
S- -r-
3 "O
O 2
3 •«
n3
Ol +->
O -Q
4-> -r-
OO S-
c
+->
re
o
•" c
U)
O) o
t-
CTli—
-5
re f—
re
c re
. i
•r- Li-
re -
c
i- o
O) XJ
ro -^
, —
>
c^n
-1
cr
l/l
CD
rd
O
CD
>■
Cl>
1—
U1
m
re
1 —
S-
T
o
rO
>1
■r—l
03
i— I—
c
c
re -i-
re
o
OO -^
ea i —
in
+->
Q.
E i—
CO
S- E
1/1 H3
s
O) 3
E
>1
o
Q.O-
•«■ oo
Ca-
Q.
.*£
i-
3 S- CO
o> ••>
ro
0)
O) O)
O) c
go
>-
• -o.cn
S- S-
CO
s- q. re
o o
S-
s_
j*:
1 —
o> 3 c
.c
01
CD
O)
+-> •!-
>, Ol
>
2
CD
re
to "a re
o
5-
E
3 c s-
Ll_ cq
cc
_l
U
oo
o re T3
, —
cn
CI)
F
00
{-
=r
£
< )
■a
cr
CD
rd
XJ
>.
00
Q
a)
i-
oo
in
.o -o
3
<~
I/O
CO
N
rn
3
£
S- to .—
cn O)
c: x:
•r- +J
4-> O)
o s-
O) O)
4- 3
O t-
•r- O)
re re
o 3
i— s-
O) O)
CD
CD
u
J^
5
CD
CD
OO
CD
4-
O) o>
S- +->
re is
O)
-!-> T3
01 O)
E -o
ro O)
S- Ol
re o
Q. X
O)
CO Q. i
•r- -r- O
.,—
>>
>i
S-
l/J
4->
+J
UJ
OO
C
1—
re
(1)
01
O
3
cn
4->
231
Q. i—
•r-
I/)
OJ
.«
1 —
00
OJ
OJ
CO
S.
OJ
tu
s-
o
CO
ro
s-
ID
+J
+J
^
rO
-t->
2
u
-t->
S-
^D
o
3
03
-O
+J
s.
3
_/
. #%
+J
^
s-
X3
OJ
oo
I—
+J
OJ
_i^
C
S-
s-
OJ
s-
T3
^3
+J
<_J
QJ
o
C
Z3
(.
_c:
to
—
OJ
X
u
D)
OJ
rs
o
• - CD
OJ 2
OJ .—
• r- .- i/i rj>l-L.
>,CO CO O C
U_ •* re
S- S-
"O OJ CO
C >
re -i- c
Qi CD
S -!->
o c +->
S- s- o
S. OLY
cn
3 oj o i—
OJ •<- o o
ro •" c/i
C CO
•i- OJ «'
fO -i— CO
S_ S- -r-
TJ rO <0
4-> >
S_ 3 3
Oil IO
>>•!- OJ
3 O 3 i—
rc
. ^
CD
••> c
.^ o.
-l->
CO
(O
CO t-
S- OJ
=3
OJ
c
-^ ro
o o
_Q
OJ s_
4- X
S-
rO
OJ -o
OJ
s-
rO
S-
S-
-t-> —
4->
+->
T3
o c
CO
3
o
rO CO
OJ
-O
CO
C i —
OJ OJ
c
o
i.
j*: ro
T3 S-
-!->
+->
OJ
Q-Ll_
c: <o
CO
E
E -
rO -t->
3
OJ
S_
3 O
3
O
3
<
Q_
>>-Q
cn
-o
O--.-
c
-o
i- c
S- S-
OJ
o
c
OJ ro
re +->
>■
r—
ro
CL
Q.-C
OJ
>>
3 rO
S_ 3
Q.
O-
OJ CD
rO
rO
S-
"O M
Q- C
E
E
<a
C T-
Q. O
en
CO
CO
ro s:
13 r—
i.
.v:
3
OJ
to
0)
1
z
1
<_)
l/l
0)
i-
01
U-
0)
It
C J
♦J
3
a
(O
,'
S-
0)
■i->
(]>
'-
cu
u
rO >, >
E r- -r-
COU.D1
QJ
T3
■o
T3
-a
+J
s_
S-
S_
s_
Oj
ro
ro
ro
ro
E
M
M
rvi
N
03
rO
ro
ro
rO
S-
J^
.C
J^
jz:
oo
Qu
>,
>>
>>
>i
+->
+->
+->
+j
Ol
c
C
c:
c
c
+J
,
, —
1 —
, —
u
ra
rO
ro
ro
CO
CO
CO
CO
s-
+J
.c
J^
x:
J^
CO
CD
cn
cn
cn
0J
CC
I
3:
X
-r
CO
c:
o
-,_
c
o
E
E
D.
o
3
o
O
CO
T3
C
ro
i-
a>
>>
+J
+J
OJ
E
c
03
i-
rO
ro
a-
c/0
■r-
(J
C
■a
5-
>.
03
i-
N
tu
ro
>
J_
1
T)
1 "O
1 T3
e -a
E -o
F
■a
3
S-
3
S-
3
i_
/O
ro
03
-n
N
TJ
N
■o
N
0)
ro
a>
ro
QJ
ro
i^
J3
i.
.C
i.
-C
282
•r- Q.
CT1 M
1
C ■!-
S- O)
ro s:
ai -Q
3:
3
. #s
O co
- S-
>— 0)
>> QJ
fO >
— S-
-O 1-
co ro
c or.
-i£ 4->
13
QJ 3
U~) i~
QJ XI
OJ
S- T-
• ""O
o s-
i/i 3
+J
S- O
to
QJ O-
i— a>
>
i— c
•r- QJ
QJ O
S- r—
E -t->
-(->
S_ CO
S- +J
<C 3
OJ -r-
O
"D 1—
-*: i —
3
i. i—
O •"
O QJ
Q. (/)
<*- >~
-*:
c/l
-a qj
QJ
-t-> .—
C QJ
C^
CO i —
rO 1-
re
OJ *
o
c
3 E
c:
co
s- s-
ra
TJ
O QJ
s-
C •*•
XT +J
T3
ro -^
cn+->
OJ
•i- O
C
>, a> co
O
a. s-
"O
S- o
QJ C
^—
rO
X: fO
ro
co i/i
+->
U_
S- r—
c: c
o
QJ QJ
QJ CO
3 E
QJ E
X3
o s-
3 O
c
—I <t
+J 3
ro
r- o
r— X
iT3 QJ
OJ >
OVr-
ro CC
ro QJ
s- -o
•a 3
o
C Q.
i. QJ -.-
3 S- -r-
C ro
QJ "O
QJ QJ
3 <_>
co >
QJ •.-
•i- or.
s_
rO S-
+-> aj
3 -O
-Q 3
•i- o
f— "O
■— 3
(O o
E Q.
QJ T3
-O 3
3 O
o a-
i— o
3 5-
X) OJ
3 S-
i- 3
i— a>
S- O
OJ
■!-> i — _*:
5- Q
QJ
OJ •
QJ •" QJ
3 +J
c -* s-
O CL
o aj c_>
• — a> .*:
-i-> aj
U QJ
co S- X
T3 X QJ
3 (-> ro
C QJ S-
O Q-
<fl (_>
•— >, N
co co c:
qj li_ s:
•r- QJ o
>-
ro i- r—
> S- i—
. — s_ s_
3 ro ro
•— QJ QJ
CD f—
r— <+- ,— C
QJQJ
QJ QJ
QJQJ
QJQJ
■i—
s
> -o
> "O
> T3
> -o
+->
o
1 S-
1 S-
1 s-
1 S_
c
XT ro
x: ra
X ro
x ra
QJ
X)
cn N
en rsi
CD N
en M
+->
c
i- (O
•r- ro
•r- ro
•r- rO
O
5-
IC X
•jn x
rx: x
m x
D.
Q.
c +->
•r- c
i— o
ro O
283
-Q
O
CU
Cn-O
t-
•i- 3
^i
(/)
cu
(_>
CO JD
CD
CD
>
Ol
CD
GO
CU GO
S.
S-
-o
-C O
LJ
03
c:
fd
■»-> a:
-(->
CD
>
C
Z3
3
C 5-
.Q
CD
ro
cu cu
-V
CD
cu 3
CL
5-
X3
CO
2 o
>-,.£! TD
>> cu
Q.T3
s- 2
03 o
OO D-
S_ r—
CU +->
2 +->
o •■-
s- o
o
i —
r/1
ro
cu +■>
Li_
4->
CD
CL t/l
C
>>
Q- 2
4->
3
S-
<0
3 O
CL
x:
rc
-a
S-
CU
+J
c
CD
O
cu
=5
=5
>
cu cu
X
>
-Q
OO
co>-
CU
o
cr
ro
JD
5-
£1 •—
ro
+J
(/I
S_
S-
S-
CU
fO <T3
<u
CU
CD
ai
T3
S- E
>
C
C
>
2
"O GO
o
O
O
cc
+->
+J
s.
Q.
to •«
GO
00
i — go
s-
2
3
s.
CU
i— cu
cu
o
O
CD
CU ■!-
■a
■a
+->
E S-
2
1 —
i —
3
+J
S- ro
O
CU
CD
o
< +->
a.
>-
>-
c^
i —
•r- -r- l-
S- GO r-
S- r- 03
S^r— S-l— S-l— S-I—
O-O O-Q O J3 O-Q
•r-J O •'-3 O 'f-J O t-3 O
rO £_ ro S. rot. ro S.
s a. s:cl s: a. 2: a.
1/1 go
JD -O
3 S-
go rO
284
i- co TJ
(O d) c
GO •!- re
c:
TJ CO
jQ M
.,—
cc t>
a. >
o
CU TJ
i_
cc
z>
+->
+-> o
o
t- 5:
... _q
t- 5
co
<_> •!-
>>+->
cu
co CD CU
cu
3
•r- S-
S-
3
S- CO .*£
a. cu
o
S- CD
Q.
CU CO
en
cu o ro
o. c
4J Q-
£Z S-
c:
> CC 4->
ZJ o
co
s_
o cu
o
■i- c
-M
CU
CU 4-
cu
+-> >
I—
V 1_ . -
.«. to
>-
S- 4-
Q-
co -p-
CU
-^ 3
O
Q.
3 s-
. •%
c 3 o
cu o
CU C
3
o
>,
S- o +->
cu i—
r— S-
S- ZJ
i— s-
4->
O r—
s_ ,—
ro CD
rO S-
>— cu
-c >>
C_) cu
E >
S-
CU TJ
<_)
en - $_
>-
CO 1—
co 3
cu
>- 3
•r- >, S_
co
cc
E O
-(->
o
CO
co ro cu
•i- S-
. «
ro r—
CO
.«- Q_
CU
■a h-
ro cu
co c:
CU 4-
zs
cu
S- SZ 1
> 3
^ s_
S- l
c_>
cn-o
CU 3 cu
3 o
tl) o
+-> -S=
ro c
s:
3 oo c
ro r— J*
CD -C
CO CD
o
c ro
o o
cu cu
s- en
4->
o
i— « 4-»
co ••> cu
CJ •!-
s- _c
ro cz
4->
_*r CO
$- s-
CQ
cu
i —
S- S-
CO
■a o 3
• - cu c_>
CO
f — en
CU
TJ O
cu
co
coo
^^ >
I— tl)
t— c
S-
-C
en
S-
ro r— .—
cu •■- cu
i — x:
<T3 -i-
3
co en
ro
OJ
cu d; >
Ol +->
E s-
fO
1 *l—
c
>>
C 3 0)
S- •!-
E
CO ZJ
_J
r- ca
s:
S- 1— >-
O i- TJ
S- 3
TJ
1
cu
ro
i
o
CU S=
=t o
cu
CU
E CU
s-
cu
JZ: S- ••<
S- TJ CU
-C c
c
£ .rz:
"O
c
>>
en CU co
O 3 r—
TJ CU
+-> o
o
<=C 4->
o
-t->
•r- 3 -*
>,OCD
C -Q
+J
c
+->
ca o cu
C_ CL.
fO
<+- +->
CO
•" c
o
co
o
i— cu
Q.
CO
o ro
2
co CU
1 —
3
cu s-
CU >1
>-, CU
en
o
.2*: cu
o
co
i— « o
s- ■— CU
Q--I-
>>t-
cu S
ro
OJ
+-> O-
CU -4-> c:
S- S-
C S-
CU -(->
LL-
+-> ro c
3 +J TJ
n3 ro
n3 S-
cu
s- cu
cu
■r- O -l-
O -r- T-
00 +->
2: -i-
>-
<-> -O
CS
>-
s:
_i oo -^
__l i— oo
a
s-
r-
u
CO
-»->
ro
m
U
S
3?H
OJ cu
cu cu
s- +->
ro ro
OJ i—
T3 -i- 1-
i — i — £=
t. 4->
CU
+■> TJ
CU CU
E TJ
ro cu
s- cu
ro o
O- x
cu
s_ t—
285
-o
<D
O
JZ
+J
E
3
(TJ i— f—
2 •— '-
i— ■— Q-
r— r— +->
•r- -r- -»->
CO </l
CM <C
I— CQ
r- <— Ol CI)
286
a
c
'.
rO
a
*
h
>1
3
m
11
■a
c
3
(/I
V
1/1
<u
(li
a>
S-
S.
j^
iq
( )
U
-t-j
o
3
c
1 —
XJ
o
c
sz
JD
CO 3
o
en
00 JD
(—
s-
n3 CD
CO s-
+->
S- to
s_
(D
O O
CD
■ •> >
CD
cc:
Q-
00 •!-
3
c
a-jr
j^ cc
cn
CD •«
3 -M
CD
c:
+-> to
3
CD CD
o
+-> j*:
"O o
S- 3
I—
O CD
c E
O cn
a: <d
to
c:
S-
o
3 O
■ CJ
£Z +->
O 1—
n3
Q-
S-
S-
E
(C -o
o s-
S_ S-
to
O 3
-C CD
<£ CD
OO J3
CD >
s
CD
■o o
.v
« i/l
ca cc
C i —
CD
(/) o
rc>
CD
•r- CC
CD S.
S-
rt3
i— CD
S- J*
t_5
> i-
4-> -O
O CD
3 CD
+J 3
>, CD
>■>
IB 2
•r- O
S- S-
CD O
_l O-
o_ o
Ll.
CQ i—
■a
cn n
3
-M
C 1-
o
Q.
•r- 21 tO
Q.
CD
cn <d
O
C •«•!-
»n
X
(0 i- s_
i/i
CD
3: cd to
^
> ■»->
CD
••>•!- 3
CD
to
CD CC _Q
5-
CD
cn •!-
CJ
ro i- S_
S-
C CJ -M
C
CO
•r- -o
•r—
+J
<o 3 -o
j*
3
t- o c
Cl
JD
"O Q- rcj
E
•f—
3
^L
S_
oo cd -*:
a.
CD
4->
r— I— <D
CD
i — +-> CD
-a
^
CD
CD -!-> S-
c
c_>
c
E -r- C_)
rO
o
S- ■—
C
+j <c c
-^
O
oo
.» o
O
2
•» l/ll —
o
o
_^ .*: r —
03
CD CD n3
Ll.
CD CD Ll_
3
CD
S_ S- -
t— o
>-
u oo
S-
S-
,
>, s- s-
QJ
cd
Q- CD CD
3
3
<o
s- +-> a.
O
o
E
(0 +j a
_J
i —
oo
O0 O 3
■— a.
cz CD CD
$-■•-> c
o +->
j= o J-
enct: <D
•r- >
CQ »•■-
O.QC
CD <0
i— O CD
-t-> OO 3
-»-> cn
■r- •- a
^ *— O
>, 3 •-
+-> O tO
•r- E ^
Z DID
•■- O
O CO t—
-M i —
S- 3
S- (O I—
CD CD
+J C S-
to CD
3 c 2
C_) S- O
I O i—
CD J^
c cms >,
O •■- C 4->
+-> CO n3 -r-
00 tJ
2 •- -
O S- i/l to
i — CD oo CD
r— > (O ■—
CD -t- S- -r-
^ ct: ts s:
287
CD
CU
S- S-
2
O (O
O
CU
>> c
rt$
S-
XJ s-
cu
-^
C Q)
>
a)
3 >
•i—
a>
•r- 3 S-
>> c
o
o
s- -o
+j
CO +->
CL. -r-
to
•r- to
oo
2
<« s
S-
o
> o
ai s-
3 1 —
3 f«
1 —
(O r—
o cu
cu
cu cu
_l c
>-
CO >-
o >,
-M +->
O T-
<+- T- TO
-Q CU
i— S- 3
(O 3 C
je: go o
Q. I—
cu cu
cu cu
S- i—
S_ i—
+-> -O
4-> -Q
(/) t-
CO T-
3 en
o fo
s- oo
3 3
.a o -a
QJ ro
S- 3 E
CU en O
a. c 3
ex o
3 l— en
a> t-
0) (O
ai +-> hi
s- Q.
o aj ••>
u to
to x cu
I— CU 1-
r— >— - S_
a> (T3
E 1-+J
_■> s- qj 3
•i- eC > -Q
CO >i- -t-
i — i — -(-> o 3 aj cu
o to i —
S-
l_
■r-
c: en
S-
en
en
3
3
TD O C
u
(O
re
ch o
CQ
ca
_l
_i
S-
fO 1—
c
to
l
1
i
QJ
i-
• 1—
QJ
<-
cu
to
cu
Q.
>> QJ i—
-^:
aj
c
cu
c
a.
a. a.i—
a.
+->
>
o
o
3
i- Q. fC
E
+->
+J
S-
+J
ro 3 e
3
•r-
s-
to
<T3
to
go to
a.
3
+J
3
to
a>
o
3
o
.^
t- ^ •-
S-
S-
3
-O
cu
Q) QJ -~>
QJ
aj
cn
1 —
•i—
f —
cu
3 cu E
3
3
C
cu
5-
cu
s-
O S- n3
O
o
o
>■
+->
>-
u
i— (_> T3
i —
_l
1—
288
J^T3 O
CD £Z I—
O) « i —
•r- "-d ao
m w 3 n
d ro ajs: >>
i — S— 1/1 CD
+-> cd o s- c
-p
or:
CD "O
O -*
c
3 T-
CD
<d s-
O CO
-iT. CD
+j a>
s_ s_
+-> 3
o
o o
oo
o o
.~ -l_>
M-
^
or. .—
on
s_
CD
S- >>
+J CD
01
CD S-
00 -t->
S-
Q.-^
> S-
rO +->
o
re cu
O CD
•r- CD
CD O
co s-
1
"D -O
3
c_>
S- CD -^
C C
o
CD C CD
ro ro
oo >,"0 O CD
■a
•r- ro
3 ■<-> S-
'-a
c
to "O
O ulO
>> =3
ro
> cz
ci- 3
O.JD
3 3
O CD
S- CD
00
rO CO
CD t— >
rO 00
en
CD
0/0 O
ro
CO ■«
+J CD T3
DC
O.
oo
+-> >- C
•-.^
•t- CD
.*: s-
-— ^ CD
O CD
S-
j*:
oo CD
00 CD
O 3
CU
ai
CD S-
"O CD
i— O
>
ai
•i- O
C •!- ■«
S-
S-
ro S- CD
3
a:
cj
(O -^
(13 CD
|_ .r.
+-> o
S- -M rO
oo
t-
i.
3 o
CD 13 C
S- -^
cu
O
-Q i—
"O -O T-
CD CD "O
>>
3 •-- «
3 CD
3
s.
S- 3
o s- s-
O S-
o
D.
4J 1—
D. +-> -O
_1 o
a.
ai
i/i
oo
u
CD
ZJ
u
CD
a
X
>
o
01
ai
'_
a.
c
•1-
0)
CD 3 CD l—
>.
*J
rn
u
"U
(/I
a
>1
i.
>> I
CD C
i— -o o
4J Ch
C « >,
3 1- CD
i ui m c
I -r- a.-o
(U IB tt'r
C > 3W
O 3
■m <a •« j-
00 CD ^ TO
3 CO CD CD
O CD C
t— »•> S-
r— C C_> CD
CD t- C
>- TD -O O
S_ 13 +->
•« (O J3 V)
oo m CD 3
C71 oo O
C S- O i—
•i- rO QT. , —
S- CD CD
CD S-
■t- CD
CO 3
CD "O
oo ro
oo <a
3 -a
3 -O
s- c
i~ c
O CD
O CD
CD oo
O oo i —
3 oo CD
TD CD >
O O CD
S- X f—
a. ai
CD
CT)<4-
CD O CD
C S- S-
O +->
+J ■(- oo
oo c -
3 <C
O -C Q-
CD
01
3
^:
Q.
c s-
>-
c
O-
CD
cu
jz
TD
rO
ro
CO
ai
3
£L
TT
+J
a
C
_l
+->
S- 3
3:
>5
+->
c^
CZ
E
rO
c
c
CD O
s-
ro
s-
E
ro
C
ro
S-
> i —
CD
S-
-a
CD
c
ro
OO
ro
rO
3
>
(O
c
+->
OO
ro
CD
o
s_
or. ••>
CD
3
oo
oo
S-
c
+->
o
oo
oc
c
CO
3
OO
c
E
ro
CD
c_>
C -i^
S-
CJ
B
ro
cu
IB
c
+J
S-
>i
S- CD
S-
i-
<D
rO
C
4->
CD
o
CD
S-
S-
O CD
CD
CD
1/1
>
s_
CD
O
£
S-
>
S-
rO
^: s-
T3
>
fO
S-
c
+J
Ml
o
• i—
CD
CD
CT) U
3
• t—
ro
or:
CD
+->
en
CJ
l/l
ro
U
CD
Cd
1
c
CO OO
O
oc
>
3
CD
c:
oo
ro
(J
CD
CD
<_>
O
CD
CD
CD
OO
CD
ro
3
CD
>>
CD
(J
o
JZ
o
c
c
C
c
• « ro
c
CD
CD
£
CD
^Z
O
cz
+J
CD
o
o
o
S- s_
S-
O
cn
C
O
c
+J
CU
S_
S-
+J
+->
+->
CD CD
CD
4->
o
+->
-a
S-
S-
<t-
o
CD
00
oo
oo
4->
>
oo
I—
oo
4-
o
cu
o
H-
3
3
3
oo c:
•r—
3
C
3
CO
O
"4-
3
CD
o
o
o
3 CD
QC
o
S-
O
3
CD
4->
OJ
i-
c_> +->
T3
CD
S-
+->
01
S-
1/1
1-
+J
CD
S.
CL
(O
oo
4-
O
•+-
CD
CD
CD
o o
3
CD
rO
a.
CD
CD
O
4-
E
ro
O
>-
>-
>•
-»-> q:
O)
>-
in
3
>-
c
s:
r0
O
x: <d i-
289
CD </>
> 3
•i- o
CC r—
•!-
>>
D£
dJ
C
i- -o
0)
"O
oo
3
S- 00 •!-
T3 i*-
C O
S- LO +->
d) CI o
> CD i—
■I- r— _Q
Q£ CL (fl
s- >>
ID ■—
3 «—
n3
i/l (J
C •>-
O Q.
i- >>
+-> +->
. S- CL)
+-> S-
S= (U
CD 3
■O ffl-P C Ul
S- -r-
<D T3
3 c
E 4->
O 3
c/1 J3
>> ro
T3 +->
S- I— r—
•P in O
O0 •(- £Z
2 <0 <D
cn en
3 T-
O0 -C
(T3 -i-
C C
ro 1-
E
3
<D <4-
t- Otl
s-
fl l/l ID
t/1 N
>, a; «
r— O -C
C X
o a> t>
a. o
o +->
en E
o E
290
<D i—
S- cn <u
CD m 3 .
> OJ CD
•r- 0J C
o: s- o ■
<_> (—
i- CO ••> S- C i—
.C r— CD
CD Ol fO
•r- E C
co s- ■■-
S- S-
QJ -* T3
Q. S-
ao-o
3 4- Z3
CD CD 03 CD
re re
+-> -a
jQ 13
•r- to
+-> o
i/i o
2 i—
o aj i— i—
.— QJ r—
•> +-> QJ
CD CO cn
s- aj o
oj 2 cn
+->
co .«> .«<
3 CD CD
C_J t- -V
QJ OJ
aj > a>
> t- S_
o a: o
JD
re c: co
S- i—
0J O i—
c j: a)
O CD E
4J -r- S-
CO CO <C
s
o s- s-
Ur-X S-
ore-"
X +-> CO
U
O aicncn
=3 c >)
to cdt- aj
a) c^ c
r— O Q.T3
•r- I— E f-
3 oo
.„
s- >>
to
aj aj
J^
>> c
OJ CO
s: s-
aj oj
•i—
.*: re i-
r— s 2 re re "a re
aj o o at E c oj
>- i — i — c co re c
CED
CO t3
S-
co c:
S- OJ
re re
aj >
s_
> i-
CDCD
•r- a:
.c
a;
a re
aj
OJ CL
aj ^
+-> Nl
C CD
+J T-
o c
o 2:
+-> o
cc
CO I—
2
"CD
o s-
CD ^^
r— OJ
CL OJ
i— Q.
re aj
re T3 CD OJ
E c c -^
co re o re
aj o ■—
aj ^ re o
:-~.
<~
1—
S-
CD E +->
<_)
CO
S.
CQ
. r.
co
^
re
CO
CO
■•> S-
aj
3
ai
• 1—
axe s_
c
O
re
-C
^^ OJ
S-
>
4->
OJ 1—
s_
a>
CO
re
o
OJ I
GL>
-O
.*:
*J
re
c
1. s_
>
OJ
^
OJ
cu
c_> ojjc
s_
QJ
.o
ca
1J
> >»
Q£
QJ
S-
•r—
3
T3 •!- OJ
>
o
i.
4->
3 o: c
OJ
+j
jc
QJ JD T3
C
OS
c
>.-Q
QJ OJ -r-
o
■o
OJ
CO C 00
+j
QJ
jx:
c
i/l
o o
CO
3
Q-
re
+J
OJ
Di 4J S-
3
CD E
c:
co re
O
c
3
t-
3
S-
S- 3 QJ
o
O-
QJ
in
ra
QJ O C
1—
>
+J
2 i—
OJ
TD
OJ
3
o ^- s-
>-
s_
C
cn
>
Xj
■— OJ OJ
<D
re
o
>- >
3
c
-Q
s-
s.
O
S-
E
re
+->
co "• CC
OJ
f —
S-
o
re
5—C
>
QJ
.c
-a
QJ
cu
QJ CO QJ
T3
+->
CD
C
c
> QJ C
C±
E
+->
OJ
o
o
•i- •,- O
re o
CQ
sz
+->
+J
i- S- -t->
c
+J
CO
CO
re co
'_
CU
*•
OJ
2
3
S- 4-> 2
O
3
sr
3
o
O
QJ 3 O
-C
cn
re
+->
o
TD£lr-
CD
C
E
+->
3 i- i—
r—
O
O
•1—
OJ
OJ
QJ
O 4- OJ
CQ
1—
3
_l
.a
>-
>■
O- ■(-> ^
CJ 4->
x o
291
3 > «—
>>-o
•r- O
O Q-
> T-
■r- S- C
o: 4-> -o •!-
c -^
c-p 10 a
S- to E
O O -* 3
+-> CD .O 3 CD
P>(UO Dl t-
■I— "F— (/) I CO (/>
i — C£ O CD C (O
W S. S-T3 S-
a> o cd c -o
1 — .*:
S-
CD Q.
•r- CU
-C
re
•r- 3
s <u
to
+->
CO
S-
3
o o
-0
S- -i^
+-)
CD
CD CD
en
E
S-
Q. CD
.c i —
S-
-t->
CL S-
+j i —
<x
3 O
>> ai
CD
i/i E
T3
C
•• >>
5- C
C
o
to ra
O <t
(O
+->
to
CD "O
■I- c
1 S-
-C
3
S- 3
QJ Q)
>>
O
fO CO
c 3
Q.
+->
o o
i.
3 ■"
+J 1—
rO
CD
-Q to
(/)
u~>
>-
•,- CD
3 ■»
-C
S- T-
O -^
s_
i.
+-> S_
r— CD
CD
1)
<T3
r— CD
Q.
>
<T3 "O +->
CD S-
Q.
E
c 3
>- C_5
ZD
Q£
CO
fO -Q
3r- 3
<D I—
> S_
•r- i— CD
CC r- "O
rt3 3
CEO
S- i/) O-
O
.C •• CD
CD 1/1 i —
•I- .^ +J
CQ CD +->
CD O
Q- -a
Q. >, C
3 CL (O
s- -a 3 ai
3 c o c:
« (O Q- "O
I T-
» S- co
cd -ii: CD
cu
i/) CD
CD C
•i- O
o
+J
to *r- CQ tO
3 re -m 3
O > 3 o
i— 3 _Q r—
i— ra •.- i—
CD CD S- CD
>- CO +-> >-
C CD
CD en
CD T3
3 c
-t-> 1-
CD 13
-a
S- Cl
+-> T-
3 SL
+J
>3
to
<T3
3 -o
o
c
Z3
1 —
co
r— CD t—
>
, —
-Q
3
CD
CD
to
>-
</>
CD
O
co
a:
to
CD
to
C
^
Ol
CD >-,
c
CD CD
S- C
O T3
CQ
to LO
CQ
CD
>
r— S_
O
O
CD "3
+J
JD
E CD
<T3
s- c
S-
<
CU
CD
S-
s_
t.
>
OJ
• ^ CD
=5
>
>> >
ia
Cd
+J -r-
_i
Qi
•r- CC
i
S-
O
a>
a>
CD
CD
c
-o
£
to c
o
3
O
CD O
+->
o
+J
i — +->
i/i
Q.
to
•i- to
3
3
s: 3
o
i.
O
o
CD
S- i—
CL
(O i—
"aj
CL
CD
CD CD
>■
3
>-
C >-
CD +->
CD -C
CD -C
CD -C
to U
(/5
to
(/)
CD C
CD +->
CD ■!->
CD +->
C T-
C -C
C -C
C -C
n3 +J
n3 cn
<n cn
« CD
CD (/)
OVr-
CD-I-
CD-r-
C -i-
C i—
C i —
C i —
fO -a
rO to
03 to
fO to
292
>1
i- +J
O) T-
CL<_>
CD
>
a>
>
OJ
QJ
3
en
3
or
-I-'
+->
OJ
s-
a>
i.
J3
ai
-Q
(V
"0
T3
in
3
CO
3
ai
o
qj
O
o
.-
4->
^r
OJ
on
GJ
^
S-
OJ
c_>
>>
3
to qj
o
qj .*:
•i- to
s- +->
QJ
(C c
>-
+j i— (
JD +->
S-
CO
c >
3
O -r-
O
5- i—
(O
QJ
+j or
4->
-t->
1
>
</)
1
QJ
CD QJ
QJ CO
s_
C C
QJ
c: s-
QJ
■r- o
S-
o qj
>
+->
> +->
3
+-> >
<T3
•r— CO
rO
CO -r-
OT
n
—1 3
_l
3 S-
+-> 4->
1 O
S-
1
o
OJ
o o
QJ i—
QJ
QJ
. — i_
E
C ■!-
C i —
>
C
w— a>
O
-Q
O QJ
o
qj -a
+->
>>
+■> >-
OT
-l->
>- 3
co
i — o
CO
CO
O
3
-Q -r-
3 —
S-
3
i — Q-
O
i.
(O +J
o s_
QJ
o -*:
QJ
-O (O
i — QJ "O
i— Q)
rO -O
>
O 3
i — >
3
i— QJ
e c
QJ
t- cr
QJ •.-
o
QJ S-
CO ro
>-
o;
O- ro
>- OT
Q_
>- O
CO o
QJ
CJ
S-
4J
ra
s_
S-
o
Cj
o
1—
'_>
CO
CO
*"
(T3
CD
CO
£.
i.
4J
QJ
|J
■o
QJ
01
E T3
fO
CU
J-
QJ
tO
u
a.
X
S_ r—
+-> -l->
r— CO C
!93
-o u
Ol 4- -r-
T) OT3
c c
oj c f-
Q. O
tO -i- "O
3-P QJ
W lO C
"O -r-
CD S- +->
•i- C0.O
.C 0J O
"O
0) >>
S_ I— r-
0) i— •—
.C 10 (O
s s- c
<u o
1/1 > -r-
OJ O to
1 — (B
Q. S- U
E O O
(T3 •<—> o
00 IT3
• OJ
to -U >>
C (0 r—
O U 0J
•r- -I- S-
VT3 H!
<a c s-
s_ -r-
+-> =^
c >>■—
oj i— c
O -Q O
C rtJ
O -Q 0J
t_> o s-
s- tu
-t-> CL 2
c
<u ~o </>
E 0J-—
•i- c ai
-O -i- >
0 iq ai
00 +-> r —
.a
-o O +J
a; s= •
■O >i<U >i
on c .— E S-
i — ai +->•!- aj
> (/) <u oj to
oj ^ +-> to •!—
r — to </) 4-
•r- -a
C_) i — to OJ OJ
<y> ra c "0 -c
C O C -P
-a O O OJ
C to Q. C
re ro "O to o
OJ C 3
to to ro to (/l
o c >>-c u
• i- n3 i— CO OJ
4_> .,- +J .r- 4-
ro -o c -c 4-
c oj oj oj
>iii) is 3
s- a> >■> c
E c
to
OJ to
CO c
c o
fd -i-
S- +J
E "
oj co
OJ +->
C •!-
oj 5
o o
Q. i-
s- o
aj c
s-
OJ »
2 c
o o
a. ■•-
OJ •.-
-c -a
4-> C
•r- <_>
■o ■■-
a> oj
s- >
OJ «
> -C
O r—
X OJ
co.i<:
E >■>
_e
i. to Q.
oj c o
+j o s-
to •<- +-»
C_> n3 OJ
o
S- O CD
OJ •!-
C OJ Q.
> OJ >
•r- s- aj
to -O +->
2 -r- -r-
O 00 i —
^ S- J3
oj <a ro
>- OJ -Q
c o
OJ s_
.E S- a.
+-> OJ
> -C
•>•!- CO
.*: a: •<-
to OJ
2 +->
•t- -r- (O
+j oj oj
CDi—
to (0 XI
r— S- O
•i- tj a
oj t3
x +->
to >,+->
_E s- o
>, p
r- S- OJ
i— aj -c
aj •!- m- -o
OJ "O <4-
OJ to
o
OJ E
-E OJ
294
i_
l —
• r-
QJ
2
>
4-
o
e
ac
O
l/l
Cl<
cd+->
3
e
o
cr>
c
C
T3
3
O
It
1-3
h-
CD
E
S-
O
i-
o
QJ
5
3
o
e
O
1—
•1—
1/1
(.
.*:
u
(i)
OJ
s_
s_
0)
o
+J
OJ
re
+J I/)
l/>
(0
>1
E i —
o
:e
(D Ol
CU
c
1
S-
<_> >
ro
OJ
CD
1- Ol
-a
E
c
>
CD <—
c
O
o
O-
ITS
:s
+J
Qi
00
1/1
O CO
(/I
Ol
2
S-
«=r h-
i —
E
O
0)
T3
E -E
CD
en
3
03 CD
£
c
OJ
O
-E ■!-
i-
ro
>-
D_
+-> -E
<C
in
l— -r- >,
1/1
^
-V
ro
cu
cu
c
^
'-
(J
o
.e
<y1
O0
CD-*:
cu
en
ai
QJ
•~
E
CD
o
£
_£Z
<c
+->
c
S-
c
^
aj
CD
Cl
s
0)
E
o
3
13
1 —
■<J
C_
r- r— S_
«--r-
>>
>> s-
(13
O- IT3 "O
S- +->
E
n3 =J
3
CO -Q
CO
S- S-
• n
a> +->
00
2
S-
o cu
0)
O 1- S-
<L) • — •<-
O CD O CC
X >- o
ro a> > .e
3 l/l -r-
S. ro in CO
O •!- f~
E E
-a
C/l
■ —
O O
ro
3
CD
4-> 4->
JC
<_>
>-
1/1 1/1
>1
CD cr>
i-
o
+->
E E
<u
+->
S-
>
<_>
CD
> >
cu
>1
>
c
Cu
1/1
_l _1
CD
CU
1
l/l
+->
QJ OJ
CI
^
CD
> E
E
3
s:
13
O O
31
CD
_a 4-)
1
o
E
rO l/l
CU
■l->
o
2
■r—
c
1—
s- o
CO
o
i/i
CD <—
+->
s-
CD
> i—
o
on
CD
•i- CD
-1-1
2
>i
"O
C£ >-
O
s:
-a
i
CD •«
0J
p—
CD
E
E CO
'_
OJ
E
O r—
rrs
s-
O
-o >>
+J CD
ro
-!->
E CD
1/1 >
_J
l/l
03 E
2 cd
1
i/i
2
-o
O >—
CD
O
S- T-
E
cu
CD CO
i— C_)
O
>
Q.
CD O
^J
<u
CD
a. o
7- \~
1/1
1 —
>-
ZD +->
■a
s
c
O f- i—
E E
E E
E CD
CD O
CD O
CD CD
O 1-
O -r-
(J A3
S- -I-)
S- 4->
S- +->
CD fO
CD f0
CD E
CL S_
a. s-
O- CD
3
3
<_)
2 -!->
2 +J
2 S-
O (O
O 13
O CD
295
Q.
S- S-
to a>
CO "O
3
t- O
CD Q.
to oo
CD CD
C 1-
•r- S-
oo
2 —
O -^ S-
i— CD CD
i— CD >
CD S- -r-
nj -a
4-^
CD
00
3
C
c
ai
+->
C7>
c
>> o
X
o
i- I— to
CD tO 3
+J o s-
O t- CD
to 4->
>> A3 tO
C O 2
tO CJ
E O to
fO
•— i-
CD CD
S- +->
tO 1-
S- S-
4-> S- i—
"O
•i—
CD
O
+->
o
uo
on
to
■—
03
00
CD
S-
-C
CO ■— r—
CD >>
U Q.
c >> s-
ai xi id
CT
CD
JO
J3
S-
>,
o
O
ro
4-
*J
E
«
S-
C
CD
03
o
cn
CD
03
Q-+->
5-
Q.
CL
a>
03
OJ
>
u
tO
+J
X
O
OJ
s_
c
a>
>>
+j
to
03
CD
c
3
O
o
cu
CD
u
£
_C
ro
•r—
H-
on
CO
on
ai tn
- c: c
Q O -r-
O 4J r—
(_) 00 I—
tO CD
.
CD CD to
sz u
i— CD
B j= — i
-t-> c
CD r—
4->
CD
> JO
o s-
CD S-
CD tO
c\i « to
00 CD
1— +J
i— CD
O 4-
O
"O tO E
"U r— CD
CD n3 C
oo C -i-
3 O -O
•r- 3
CD +-> r—
S- Q. O
CD CD C
3 O ■■-
X
i— CD "
03
00
CD
oo
oo
o
-a
JC
CD
<u
+J
3
CD
c
E
>
tO
C
tO
CD
CD
<C
CD
>■
i-
J
>
T3
o •
CD
CD
00
-C CD
+J
CU
O CD
296
CD CD
S- -4->
+J •■-
+-> CD
•i-r—3
r— r— CT
fO C
E O
Ul wl —
(U •«!—
CD -^: > —
S- CD (O
<_> CD
s_ ...
IflU c
in t-
fO ul O
Q- r— x:
r— CD
"O CD «i-
c Eco
<c s
.— o
3 S- r—
O CD CD
3 -a
• - o
1 — 1 — Ul
CD OJ
ro re -i-
CD +-> S-
C 3 +->
.a
CD -i— CD (/>
c: s- c CD
o +-> o •<-
+J +-> S-
ul G Ul CO
3 S- 3 +->
O O O 3
r-ir- JD
r— Oil— -r-
CD -i- CD S-
>- CO >- +->
CD CD
Q- ul
a. o
3 CtC
ul S-
O CD
O CD
e q-
<4- i—
4- i—
fO
•r- Q.
•i- Q-
CD CD
<— E
i— E
S- i—
O CO
O <T5
4-> _Q
O ul
O U)
Ul T-
Ul
r— -Q
l— -Q
com
fO fO
fO fO
Q O
o s-
o s-
Ul Ul
-O -o
Z3 S-
ui fO
(0 CD cn
C .C S- S- (O
•i- c +-> cd CD c:
fO S- -^ 2 "O -i-
U O O 3 t>
"O -C S- i— O S-
CD CD Q. "O
CD CD t- -— - - CD C
CD Q£ ul r— O
S- CD i— +-> i—
+J -i- S- +J
CD CD
-t-> f—
+->
3 >
•i- fO
4J
CT> CD
i— Ll_
C i—
O
-o o
1— CD
c
cu
>
to ■«
-C
S- -r-
>>
4
CD Ul
S- CD
Q- Ul
CD C
a
CL CD
"O "t3
c
3 O
3 ■<-
re
X
o oo
• •> CD
a.
on
^
S-
OJ
CD T3
• « fa
CD "3
>> CD
<-
s- _c:
+-> C
roO T-
CD -Q CL > ul O
+-> -i- i- CD CD +->
in S- ra Ci — ui
I E i- 3 i—
i~
CD CD
S-
, —
o
D- C
ro
CD
J^
Q. O
cu
>-
Ol
=3 1—
cz
CO
"- CD
CD
</]
S- i—
3
S-
+J
CD "O
CD
<D
LO
> "O
c
>
o
o
£
o£ E
1—
5-
297
3 s-
-O QJ
QJ >
to QJ
O C
on
s- 3
o> -Q
Q. (U
3 O
a:
to ai
oo -£Z
ra +->
(1) t. (O
en QJ -C
ro >
C •!- S- OJ
■^ q: ai en
ro > re
s. m ai c
"O 3 C •--
O)
ro
O (/) d)
i— QJ £=
i— i— O
QJ -i- +J
■« 00 ^— .
l/l QJ l/l
-^ -i- i —
>»-r- QJ
i— s- >
Ll_ +-> -r-
oo
■O "O en
c e a>
ro ro O
X
3 -* QJ
O QJ
s- Qj -a
s_ s- rO
<C <_> _c
-^ sz E S-
QJ O <T3 T3
QJ I— -O
s- _c
<_) S- QJ rO
aj .c: o.
5- CL-t-> N
O O. •!-
>, 3 3 2:
s- o
Q. .», .*
>, <D S-
••> ■!-> -Q QJ
5- -i- >
QJ C_> QJ T-
+-> 3 □£
CO CO Cn
3 QJ C S-
O i— O QJ
i- l— -a
s- s: 3
ra QJ O
QJ O -C Q.
C +■> +->
S- on 4- • — .
QJ S- O 00
> QJ i—
•i- >, S- QJ
on s: qj >
i -a qj
QJ QJ C i—
C C 1-
O O fO QJ
+-> +j E >
l/l l/l QJ •!—
3 3 S- oo
O O ol
r-i- (1) ai
r— i— .c o
(1J D-P X
>- >- » — QJ
-Q
+->
ro
1/)
c
o
ft!
(J
>
ro
OJ
l/l
ra
aj
+->
-C
iW
+->
■u
+J
ro
ra
-C
U
U
—1
>r>
o
m
T3
O
co
-a
C
oo
+->
OJ
ro
•r—
E
O
s_
QJ
c
X
C
o
OJ
4-
-Q
+J
o
00
O
CO
T3
ro
S-
CT1
ra
r/l
OD
Q.
c
■C
3 c c -i- qj
o oo
■i->
i/i •«
3 QJ
O -*
i— ro
i— +->
QJ S=
>- >—i
E +-> QJ
1
QJ
ITS 00 l/l
OJ
c
2 =3
c
i— O ro
o
S-
i— r— O
+->
QJ
re i —
to
4->
E QJ -a
3
CO
CO >- 1 —
o
3 _*:
3
1 —
O QJ
QJ QJ O •—
E»->
S- o-
O OJ
o on
4- r—
4--— '
r- D.
i— E
1 — #• — *
O ra
O QJ
O C0
o cn
•r- C
ro 3 i—
, — -
o
cn
4-
(0
>t
•r—
S-
CD
QJ
-C
ro
U
CD
4- C
o
O rO
JZ
c
+->
3
QJ
to C
'-
Qj o
OJ
CD
s- s:
CO
4-
3
O
CD
4-> ti-
S-
ro O
S-
XJ
QJ QJ
OJ
OJ
Q.+J
(.
+J
E <a
ro
rO
QJ -(-»
+J l/l
-a
u
QJ
o
E OJ
+->
to
3 -C
to
CO
E -•->
i— i— X
o
.,-
+-> T3
c c
c
+->
QJ QJ
(O Ol
ro
E T3
•r-
OJ
ra OJ
to to
5-
O
S- OJ
QJ 01
QJ
ra o
cn ra
3
>
CL X
QJ
c
(0 to
T3
O
>>
S- C
OJ
+J ^~.
O
4J
"O
■<- z
QJ -r-
CO
c
S- +J
l
ro
ro
3 t-
3 (0
+-> C
on
cr qj
ra Ol
+J
>
J- T-
O
QJ
s- aj
QJ 01
c
-C=
OJ fZ
Q. QJ
♦J
+->
E XI
to
ra S-
OJ
E -O
«
3 O
-t-> Q
ro
CD
to
1
QJ
4->
OJ
C7> «
► CQ
5-
+->
CO
C •— -
4->
ra
■r- O
ro QJ
CAj
E
o
+J -^
S- JZ
O
o
QJ -P
>)
■r- >,
C
>>
c
i- T—
QJ -C
LO
(0
+-> -!->
cn-P
LxJ
E
to c:
r-
ro
QJ QJ
c 3
O
3
c
Ct +J
Z
CO
1— I
ro to
n x>
298
s_
fO
o
<d ai
ai
in
oj
-•->
3 -*:
>
0J
c
to
CD 03
i—
1—
CD
C 4->
•i-h--- C
O 03
i/i
1
sz
+J
to
ra
-C 0)
3
1
4->
CD
CD C
O
CD
>> >>
C
• 1—
c
LO
S_
03
CO S_
r—
o
i.
S-
>
>
OJ
oj
-!->
o
CD
IT3
■ « >
>-
to
LU
1—
—J
to
l/l •!—
2
1
to S-
en a:
. #N
o
c
oj
O
•r- QJ
c
>)
4-5
c
+J
>
•r- CD
+J
o
(O 1
i — C
CD
s_
+J
CO
+-> s-
i— o
O
>-
CD
CO
CD
03
•r- +->
+J
2
c:
S-
-0 s_
CO CO
to
c
CO
o
OJ
CD
2
OJ
o
=5
1 —
i-
+->
O -O
o o
CJ
Q.
to
c 2
4-> l—
CD
1
CD
CO
3
O
£
CJ
>-
c_>
.-o_
r- <x>
X)
c
c
s_
CD >-
S-
03
o
0
CD CD
s_
<a
+J
>>
2
+->
> 1 —
3 ■«
D
CO
+->
S-
■1- -t->
n3 -^
c
(0
3
0
to
ai +->
—1 CD
>
o
cj
C_)
CD
1 <1J
s_
to
1
c
S- 1—
OJ i.
OJ
1 —
to
CD
• 1—
CD
c cj
>
CO
OJ
OJ
c
-O -O
o
>-
0
2 C
+-> CO
a
+->
0 03
CO •!—
03
2:
CO
CQ
a.
2 "3
OJ
>>
+->
1 —
2
1
s-
o >
3
a)
(0
OJ
CD
O
CD
S- OJ
t— 3
c^
c
■a
5-
>
c
CD -O
r— 03
c
-o
3
O
0
a. 2
ai ai
o
o
n3
-Q
CD
-l->
Q. O
>- CQ
1— oo
■z.
__l
03
>-
to
_t> O-
. r
-»->
JQ -»JQ
r— 5-
•« S_
1— OJ
to CD
J- to $-
03 "O
CD >
+j j«: -t->
E 2
OJ
to 0
S- Qi
.*:
C OJ CD
a.
03
CD
s- s- c:
-t-> CD
^.
CD
000
.*: oj
3 3
CD
s-
jr j->
OJ 1—
-Q CD
CD
CJ
CD Ji^ CO
OJ -4->
•1- C
S-
•.-03
i- +-> CD
s- 0
CJ
2 cq
CJ •>- CD
4-> 1—
0
1— 03
S-
S-
-0 C
c s-
CD
i.
i_ 3 OJ
3 ■«•«-
i- OJ
-t->
<
CD 1— >-
i3 ^: 10
O Q-+->
>
CD CD i-
.c: ao
•1- -0 I—
to CD "O
CD 3
oj a: c 1—
O s-
>1
^
03 03
ao c
CQ '•>
03
C E
0
to
JD
+->
S- - to
s- c: ^~
OJ OJ
• »—
C
O to
qj •<- .—
CO
_c to •"
O-^t 03
4-> S-
to
CD 03 tO
Q. Q.U.
+-> 03
0
O
•r- l_ ^
3 E -
T- -t->
a.
+->
CQ CJ3 OJ
3 O
1— 3
OJ
.r. Q_
-O
. *»
to
i- c s_
C
j^
CD
CD CD CJ
i_ .«^
r— S-
CD
C
2 +->
O tO OJ
OJ +->
OJ
O +-> to
jz: oj oj
S-
s_
>— O r—
CD-.- i.
3 1 —
CJ
Qi ^~
•r- S_ CJ
03 -r-
■ 1—
a>
CO 03
_1 03
c
ca
s- - E
mat
+-> J=
1 -t->
03
1
2 3 03
OJ 2
E
CD
> ro e£
O -Q Q.
c 0
O
E
■r- O
1 — •!- N
O r—
3
O
QC CO -O
OJ S- -r-
4-> 1—
+->
C
J3 +-> ST
to CD
CD
CO
C 03
2 >-
c
2
S- to
to OJ • *
O 1
O
O CD >,
OJ 3 S-
r— C
CD
-C -r- Q-
•1- CD OJ
1— s_
c
CD S- S_
s- c >
CD O
03
CD
•1- 03 03
03 O -r-
>- J=
:r
>-
CQ ■*-> LO
■phq:
+J-— - ■!->'—> >>'"^ >J'~^ CO
J=Z J=0 i—O r— CJ I—
cd^ — cd^ — x: — x: — —
•r- -r- CD CD
1— XJ 1— -Q -r-J_1 -r-JD >,
tO *— - tO-— -C -— » JC +->
"O T3 "O • T3 1-
OJ OJ OJ OJ T3
S-S- 5-S- i. J- S-S- -r-
OO OO OO OO X3
299
CD E
CO A3 >,
O T3 CD
C£ C
CD -O
S- -C ■.-
CD +-> oo
3 i
O 3 S-
>— o cd
.— >
"O o> i-
C -Q Qi
E— ' O t-
CD 1-
i.a s.
c_> o>
cd s
>> 3 o
to en. —
-o c:
c o •«
3 l— S-
oo (D
s- >
• •> CD ■>-
^ 2 q:
cd o
0)r- s-
S- O)
o .--o
co CD O
•r- <D D-
re s-
> c_> s_
3 cd
re -a a.
cd 3 a.
CDJ3 3
O CD
i —
CD
CD
C
. X
CJ
1/1
i —
3 o
CD
S-
"O o
S_
CO
CD
13
CO
CD
X> X
>
o
+->
C (—
re
^»r
C
■o
ai
>
S-
O 0)
CD
C
<o
>>
CD
11
o
o
u
CD
re i
s.
>>
3
S-
CD
c
aj
+->
S-
X
CD CD
Q- C
re
3Z
co CD
c
C
CO
O-
CL1
C C
• i—
CD
"O
1
•i- Q-T3
s-
u
3
CD
O
c
O
c
CD
re Q.
CD
O
c:
c
O
S- +J
•1- CO
c
3
C
> 3
oo
>
■a
C
CD CO
CO 3
CD
00
o
3
3
CO
CD
> 3
fO s-
S-
+J
re ■"
i_
Qi
.a
CD
re
c
S_
•i- o
CO o
CD
T3
CO
CD -^
re
QJ
>-
CO
CD
CD
CX. t—
_c
4-
C
3 CO CD
CD
c
CO
CT)Ci_
<D Q-
CD
re
o
CD
c
i_
o
CD
O
CD
c: cd
C co
i-
■« S-
o
OH
s-
c
S.
S-
s- >-
O O
3
C CO
CD
^:
CD
o
+->
o
■(-> _C
CO
o
CD
c
CD
i.
>
+J
co
x: •-
co Q.
S-
>-
-o -o
o
OJ
CO
c
CD s-
3
<C
5-
S- 3
+J
CO
3
oc
3
<
■r- CD
O JC
O.
=1
re jd
CO
o
o
j^:
o_
CO >
r— -l->
UJ
CO
m cd
3
S-
+->
LU
cr>
CO
O
>5
CD
■ •a:
CD 3
CD
i —
c
s- o
i —
CD "O
"O
CD
3
CD
S-
>-
_£Z
CD
re cc
C
3
i-
£Z
CD S-
CO
+J
S-
CD
S-
CD
CD
+->
fT3
O
(/)
4->
+-> CD
CD CD
3
j*:
a.
C <-
>-
c
Q.
0)
ai
co "O
.c: . —
■o
re
re
CO
ai
3
-C
"O
3 3
4-> CL
c
_j
+->
S- 3
rn
>)
•(->
CL
C
C_> O
E
re
c
e
CD O
S-
to
S-
i=
re
o_
c: re
S-
i — i
•i—
> r—
CD
S-
T3
CD
c:
ra
S-
•i— CO
re
re
3
>
re
C
+->
CO
re
fO •-
CD
o
s-
CtL .-
CD
3
CO
CD -^
CO I
s-
c
+->
o
CO
o;
c:
OO
3
CO
5-
C CD
E re
CD
C_>
£= -^
S_
CO
E
10
CD
CD
re c
+J
5.
>i
S- CD
S-
5-
X
CU
re
c
-t->
s- s-
CD O
CD
S-
s_
O CD
CD
CD
co
>
s_
CD
o
CD CJ
S_ -i-
i.
>
s_
re
-C S-
T3
>
re
s-
S-
>
+-> CO
(_)
CD
CD
CTl O
3
rt3
q:
CD
-(->
CO
CJ
•r- >,
co re
Qi
1—
c
O
CC
>
c
CO
to
cc re
o
CD
1
CO CO
o_
Z3
CD
CJ
CD
T3
CD O
O
CD
CD
CD
CO
CD
re
3
CD
>>
CD
u
u
CD C
-SZ o
c
C
c
C
"- re
c
CD
O)
c
m
-G
o
c:
C 3
+->
CD
o
o
o
s_ s_
S-
o
CD
c
o
c
4->
CD
O OO
£_
S-
+->
-i->
+->
CD CIS
CD
+->
o
+->
xj
S-
s_
+-)
<*- o
CD
CO
to
CO
+->
>
CO
1—
CO
4-
o
CD
CO »«
o
4-
3
3
3
CO c
3
c
3
CO
O
<4-
3 c
3
CD
O
o
O
3 CD
C£.
O
S-
O
3
OJ
O 1-
+J CD
i.
C_J> +->
T3
QJ
s-
4->
OJ
S-
i— "O
CO 4-
i —
, —
i —
+->
CD
i —
S-
O-
i —
T3
CO
4-
r— S-
O
4-
CD
CD
CD
o o
3
CD
re
Q.
CD
QJ
o
4-
cd re
s: re
O
>-
>-
>-
4J an
OT
>-
zc
3
>-
c;
^
re
O
>- zsz
co re
co re
3 -a
3 -a
s- c
i- c
300
c >1
S- 0J
o c:
-C -o
cn-r-
•r- OO
CO
to Ol
3 c
o o
+->
i- to
«J 3
OJ o
O) o
0J Q.
-o
QJ
c
CD
tO
.CJ
ex
-l-> <l)
cr
on
03 -o
1/)
fO
ia
O
-l-> S-
c
c
o m
-r—
d)
C QJ
i/i
CO
_£Z
T3
O.
>■>
JJZ
-•:
r— -a
4->
c
, —
(O to
> s-
-Q
O- <D
0J OJ
(0
Q-i—
2 >
fO 4-
o ■<-
x: ai
03
to -C
>
■r- tO
• " (U
ft)
+-> c
+-> 4-
c o
03
C
OJ +J
+J
cu +->
to to
03
3 c
OJ 2
T3
4-> -i-
s- o
•c- (O
O-i—
M-
-t-> 4->
1 —
o
to
4-> OJ
c o
ITS >-
o -t->
+-J
o
to OJ
c
to
OJ sz
3 tO 1 •!-
O t- OJ S- to
B -c > oj c s-
ro +-> OJ -C ■!- <o
E 4-> io i/i J3 in
tO 3+J O IO
OJ cr S- S- o.
cu
+-> OJ
O O-
JCZ
ro -o
O- c
t—
<_> <T5
1/1 H3 -i—
O r—
,— .— OJ
•i- x: -r-
.— ,— 0J
u OJ
•r- 3
-c c:
a-r-
1/1
l/l
-Q
T3
=3
J-
l/l
03
N
td
3
-C
*-
E
.C
'_
+j
03
i —
301
CO i—
u
o>
4-
o
to
<T3 3
c
o s-
•r- <U
to +->
CO CO
O S
o
o ts
a> cu
i- -p
CO -r-
O
re >—
> CO
re E
3 -o
D «
TO to
2 C
o o
Q- -i-
CU T-
T- O
-o 1-
S- .c:
iO Q.
i- -P
fO =5
0) CU
Did) CJ
.,- O S-
.c -o re
J
o a>
-a
(/I
s- >i
• cyi O
LJ
T- O
-^
O c—
(/> S- •
_e c
s-
CU
.c cu
+J D O
(.
2 a;
o
CU
CD-iii
c +->
p
j_
s-
CD CO C
m
<u cu
o
o
co i—
CD S CO
D
c/1 4-
(_>
s_ ^:
5-
o ai
.c
<U -P
D CD-P
.c s-
CO
.c to
+-> c
D
-p
Q.
-P o •
D •!— to
c
"O
-p
N
E >■>
-a 3 to
p
ai a>
c
•> .c
O CD
S- -P
s:
S- i/l a.
O t— 1—
>>
(O (O
o
CD C O
•r- M-
Q
Q-XI
-P O S-
■p >1
-o o
c
to -r- -P
dlCr-
a
ai o
CU
CO
3 -P 3
^: i- i —
a)
-p to
o
C_> CO <1)
-P CO
p
to oi
c
o
C Oil.
o
•i- (0
cu -o
S- O CD
>, C D
cu
S-
3
(Or- C
1/1 -r- C
i-
cd
CU J3
cu •!-
E cu
t-
L0 -d
<+-
CU
c a) a
M- CO CD
cO
S- -P
cu
1/)
-c o
o o
ai
s-
o
i- -p i—
<+- to
4->
-»J -o
a:
QJ CU
CD r-
O
a> a)
re
> cu >
O >i cu
C
E -O
«
•r- S- 0)
C i— >
cO 0)
i/i
1/5
a: cu T3
cu +-> <v
<D
S- 0)
CO
2
S- ^: r —
5-
re O
cu ■»-
S- CD
CD
Q. X
TD
<u
c >, o
3 T- OO
2
d)
CU
O 0)
U Ul<
>>
GO
■P c >,
o c co
T3
■4-> —
3 <:
cy) X> -t->
o 3 2:
CD
•i- Z
S -r- -^
.p
i/>
O OO i —
CU t- "O
1/1
id
CO
S-
r o «
3 S-
2
cu
r— S- -Q
+J ^
O" CL)
>
CU CO cO
■p
>
to
>- CU -Q
D c x:
-P
s- a>
4-> o;
C O
+J D O
O
at c
CU S-
ca E i-
c
■p
c
c
J= S- Q-
O Q..C
CO S-
3
s_
•P CU
•r- O S
c/1 "O
2 o
o
> -C
-O f—
E CO
C
-C
•-•i- CD
CD"
(O -P
CD •>
CU
CD
^: o; t-
•i- > c
a> -p
C -—»
■p
cu -c
D i-
S- 1-
•i- O
ca
cu cu
CO "O tO
cu
-P E
-P
•+-
S- C CO
+J CO
CD
CO o
o
o
cu
o o
co i — ca
re
1- >>
-»-> -a
-a co
c
>>
S- r—
S-
+j
3 to <U
•r- CD
-P -P
o
-p
O S -P
1/1 -P c
re
UJ i —
C/1 C
S- O CO
ct C O
S-
1 — re
CU CU
o
_j
i. r— s-
co (D'p'a
O 3
Qi -P
o
<C r- -P
s: 4J co
z: m
a) to
J3
cu
o a; t/>
-O O 2
<u
3
.*=
>- c
Q. O -C
t/i
■p
o
4->
0)
E
(1) E
CD r—
«o
O
O
C/>
<o
-C <U
-P "O
^: d
4-> >-
c
302
oo
oo
X!
O)
3
CD
CD
CD
00
o
>
x»
OO
A
c
1- c
a>
CL
o
O
S-
O 1-
C
E
CD
s_
• (—
(U
CD
ro
>
a.
-l->
>■
S-
-Q 00
2
00
CD
ro
CD
s- E
>>
S-
CD
■o
CD (1)
on
CD
-i-j
+J
C
3
x: i —
4->
-C
4->
c
+J
O
1 XI
c
+->
ro
i —
CD
Q.
CO O
CD
ro
CJ
c
CD S-
3
4-
CD
3
c
S_
T3 Q--l->
o •
-O
CT
o
CD
■r—
•i—
oo
u
>s
3
CJ >>-»->
0) c:
o
s_
4->
o >,
T- +J
00
CD o
+->
CL>
c
r— QJ
+-> 1-
C
ro -i-
■M
c
OO 1
O
+-> +->
s.
rO
no
-a -a
<L) ro
o
C fO
rO
2
S-
3
C -i-
CL 3
CD S-
<D
3
cr
rc co
cr
OJ
O 4->
Cl
o
+->
00
1- C
Q.
re
o
i-
■ s-
rO S.
CU
CD CD
rO
O
a)
o
O)
CD re
jc cu
XT
a. o
CD
+->
3 CD
4-> -t->
I—
c:
-t->
E
n3
+->
ro
CD C
id
r— O
O
CD
c
o
3
C
cd s
I— O
c
x:
c:
o s-
+->
<0
<_>
rO
OJ
r— CD
ro cd
C
E •—
oo
o
S-
oo
T3
>
O oo
00 r—
cu
■o
CD
ro
S- •■-
•«- rs
00
CO
o
-a
O
S-
cd ad
"O ro
ro
rO E
-u
ro
CD
T3
cr>
3
c o
en
oo
S-
c
CD
O CD
>>
+J
o
4-> TJ
i — c
+->
CD
i — c
sz
CD
+J
C
o
rO o
C
C •!-
CD
00
00
CD
o
•> +J
4-> ti-
O
o
3
3
2
3
-M
C 00
ro
+-)
"O
4->
ro
o
+->
s- 3
-a o
oo
c c:
U
-SC
c
o o
■o
3
•i- (O
4->
1 —
■M
CTi
•^
-C i —
cu
O
00
o
CD
oo
rs
oo
CDi—
i— >■>
i —
■a -o
C
+->
>-
C
o
ro
•r- CD
JZ> l—
CD CD
o
o
e
en
CO >-
rO -Q
CD
+-> N
o x:
a>
C_>
CD
i— to
>-
O >,
cnx
CD
s- s-
i- .a
CD r—
oo
3
+j
00
X-
c
CD CD
(O o
CD
+-> 03
• r—
O
• r-
CD O
3 3
> s-
X:
CD C
-C
C
c
X:
-i-^
o o
<a4Jt) o
t—
QJ
i—
1—
-C
00
_l 1—
, —
O
ro
ro
E
O0 ro
U
4->
CO +->
1
OJ
ro
c
3 «3
Cl
H-
*->
(O
x:
ro
00
c:
CD
u a_
O
CD
+->
•r- CD
OO
OJ
O
<o
X J-
-!->
c
o
3 -M
ro
ro
o
00
+->
u
T3
00
00
c
>»>—
• t—
Cl
•>—
CD (O
-c s- >>
O) -r- Ll_
CD i—
s-
S-
I —
Li_
CD (O
CD C
ro
o
(D O
C ro
CD
3
O
C CD
O) -C
c
+->
Cl
>1
•r- >4-
CD4->
03
i~
c:
i-m
+J •
i. -
00 00
CD
ro
ro
C CD
■O T3
O oo
>
-C
Cl
CD S-
CD
•i- CD
-!->
3 3
CD +->
-■-> I—
Qi
U
CT+->
C fO
to
(.
CD r0
O O
s- >,
CD
CD
c
S- CD
+-> -r-
C
■l->
3
4- i^
oo -O
CO i —
o
ro
E
3 c
Ll. ro
4->
CD
i— C_) -i-
i — OO U_ Q.
oo
>-
•-+->
«— -r- 3
>J
3
C
CD +->
CD
O CD
>- ro •>
S_
x:
+->
■<- s_
S- oo
03
CD
•i-)
c
■!-> CD
CD CD
C
-•->
3 3
rw c
O
ro
c
o
+-> U_ -f-
3
a.
i — I/)
oo
O CD
<4- C_) i—
ro
ro
oo
CD
CL 3
O Ll_ -r-
u
E
O
i —
00
u
S-
ro
c
r- ro
+-> oo i
o
o
CD
CD
ro >
C +-> c—
M-
S-
S-
Q.
OJ •>- CD
*
4->
CD
•r- CO
E S-
ro
oo
4-
O Li_
cn E 3
q:
ai
CD O ro
S-
3
E
c: c_>
oo S 1
QJ
CD
3 Ll_
M-
>i+J
M-
CD
E
i- 3
-T-J
CD CD O
CD
S_
ra
-M
+J •
3 c: -—
i-
CJ
oo oo
O -r- CD
ro
>i
oo
CD E
r— CDJD
I.
CD
ro
CD ro
■o
O
£
CD CD
CD 3 S-
_£Z
c
O
00
3 S-
-C t-7 CD
U
CD
CD
00 +J
+J >
S-
c
>
oo
00 t-
-C
CD
o
i_
■M
c+jq:
CD S- r—
CD O CD -i-
CD oo C -C
ro CD 1- CD
-C CD
r— r—
-o C
O i — oo
+-> +->
T- Q.
<4- ro 3
rO
ro E "O S-
CL O
CD T-
> ro
C CD
OO -i— i—
S- CJ
ro oo
rO +->
rO U r—
rO O
c
3 -r- CD
OO
CD -Q
x: cd
c >-
"O 00
S- ro
CD
C 3
CD ro
rO S-
T- oo
O E CD
+J
dix: cd
1- x:
oo CD
rO
+->
4-> >>4->
i- -C
4-> i.
>-, oo
CLX3
p— +->
ro O
i— ro
CU £
-O <4-
S- 3
CJ -o O
oo -a
ro
X CD
E
-t-> CD
Q. ro
■ — C
CD +-> CD
CD
c: -a
CD i-
3 ro
CJ 1—
CD CD
S_ S-
CJ E
S- CD -Q
X3
3 CD
+J CD
•i- 3
O <4- rO
O
+-> CJ
00 +->
+-> SZ
■nt- r—
b
i- X
S_
ro ro -i-
Cl
4-> CD
1— J-
ro c:
E ro
00
rO CJ
CL rO
>^ >
ro
C ^~-
CJ
x:
CD i— ro
O Z
CD E
4-> +->
x: -<->
>|
[_)
Ll. t
o
I— c -t->
1
J3 O
C S-
CD O
«J
S-
i+-
CD
s- c
c
CD
cd x:
rO
CD
>
S- 4->
CL CD
i-
CD
O
CD ro
CL S_
ro
C
CJ
3 s.
ro ro
CL
303
7^<t^ o^ UHXt&i wit&<lr<x<AMx(A
PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE USE
In order to adequately and uniformly assess the potential effects of
water withdrawals on the many aspects of the present study, it was necessary
to make projections of specific levels of future withdrawals. The methodol-
ogy by which this was done is explained in report No. 1 in this series, in
which also the three projected levels of development, low, intermediate, and
high, are explained in more detail. Summarized in appendix A, these three
future levels of development were formulated for energy, irrigation, and
municipal water use. Annual water depletions associated with the future
levels of development were included in the projections. These projected
depletions, and the types of development projected, provide a basis for deter-
mining the level of impact that would occur if these levels of development
were carried through.
POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY EFFECTS BY SUBREGION
UPPER YELLOWSTONE SUBBASIN
Total Dissolved Solids
Fourteen years of records (1951-58, 1963-69) on the Yellowstone River at
Billings were used to develop the regression equations given in table 134 which
were the basis for the analyses. Three levels of development were projected
for the Yellowstone River at Billings. In each, a negligible or zero salt
input to the stream was assumed for one set of calculations under a 50th per-
centile median flow and a 90th percentile low flow. Calculations were also
made with salt pickups of one-half ton per acre per year and one ton per acre
per year under the conditions of each projection and with each of the two
associated flow levels. This approach provided 18 separate analyses of the
Yellowstone River at Billings as summarized in table 135 (low level of develop-
ment), table 136 (intermediate level of development), and table 137 (high level
of development) .
Low Level of Development. Projected increases in TDS in the Yellowstone
River at Billings under the low level of development generally would have neg-
ligible effects on irrigation; this is true regardless of the flow assumption
and even when a maximum salt pickup of one ton per acre per year is assumed in
the calculations. In fact, the inclusion of salt pickup by irrigation return
flows had only a small effect on increasing the TDS levels of the river under
the low level of development. As indicated in figure 5, major increases in
TDS are projected to occur during the late summer and fall. With median flows,
significant increases in TDS concentrations were obtained only in August and
September (12.3 percent to 14.3 percent), and increases of less than 7 percent
were obtained during the rest of the year. For 90th percentile low flows, in-
creases were greater through most of the year, ranging from a low of less than
1 percent in March to highs approaching 25 percent during the fall (figure 6).
305
TABLE 134. Regression equations between TDS (in mg/1) and monthly discharge (Q)
(in acre-feet) in the Yellowstone River at Billings, 1951-58 and 1963-69.
Month
Best Fit Equation
Significance
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
All months
log TDS = 3.16424 - .12912 log Q
log TDS = 3.54116 - .20614 log Q
TDS = 1527.71 - 235.17461 log Q
log TDS = 4.24384 - .34054 log Q
TDS = 924.22705 - 131.16983 log Q
log TDS = 2.57791 - .08230 log Q
TDS = 935.46143 - 135.05623 log Q
log TDS = 4.27605 - .35261 log Q
TDS = 1622.26001 - 251.31508 log Q
log TDS = 5.05812 - .48689 log Q
TDS = 2255.61938 - 368.94141 log Q
TDS = 2119.83569 - 346.26465 log Q
log TDS = 4.82194
.44798
log Q
.073
.196
.766
.645
.606
.063
.827
.850
.868
.834
.806
.510
.934
aNot significant at 5 percent level.
Significant at 1 percent level.
However, such increases under low-flow conditions would appear to be of insuffi-
cient magnitude to affect the use of the Yellowstone River at Billings for irri-
gational or municipal purposes.
Intermediate Level of Development. TDS increases under the intermediate
level of development at 50th percentile values are projected to be very small
over most of the year. Major effects are predicted to occur in August and
September (increases of 16 percent to 19 percent over the historical). Concen-
tration increases are greater through a large portion of the year under low-
flow conditions. These range from less than 1 percent during the winter and
spring to highs approaching 22 percent during the fall. However, TDS concentra-
tions do not increase to a level that would preclude the use of Yellowstone
River water for beneficial uses in the vicinity of Billings; this would be true
under median flow and drought/low-flow conditions, even with a maximum salt pickup.
306
CI)
(/)
c
O
ll.
i/i
ni
5
j=
_
1 — *.
LO
CM
I--
CM
CO
LO
CO
, —
CM
LO
*&
CM
, —
r— CD
OO
^*-
CO
CD
o
CM
00
LO
CM
E
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
—
4-
o — ~
<T5 ^
<3-
i —
r~
i —
CM
LO
CO
CD
CM
«d-
o
O
, —
O-Ji™ CD
oo
*3-
CO
CD
o
CM
oo
LO
CM
■o
3 E
CO
CO
co
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
a>
-l_> _^ ^_^
+->
n3 CJ
ra
w a - —
3
Q i—
i/i
E
t— ■*-> \
CM
1 —
lo
1 —
CM
LO
CM
o
, —
CO
r^
CO
CD
<D
r— O CD
00
«*
CO
CD
o
CM
CO
o
LO
CM
3
GO
<o E
oo
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
r—
CO
CO
CM
GO — -
<T3
>
lo
CO
o
o
00
O
00
CD
r^
LO
LO
r>-
CD
a;
in
LO
CD
r~-
LO
LO
O
CM
r^
p^.
o
O
i —
^3-
o
CM
«3-
LO
00
CO
1 —
i —
CO
CO
LO
LO
+->
4-
CO
CO
CO
O
o
CO
r^
o
LO
CD
CD
CO
o
c
O- ro
iX)
CO
CO
O
CM
•3-
LO
<3-
LO
r-
1 —
o
CO
a>
CO
o
CO
o
o
S-
1 —
CO
CD
-C
i —
+J
OO --^
r^
o
LO
O
CM
LO
CD
o
o
00
o
LO
, —
o
Q CD
ft
CO
00
CD
CM
LO
LO
o
CD
■— h- E
n3 - —
O
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
CO
CM
£
LO
r~^
1 —
CO
CM
00
CO
o
00
, —
1—
o
O
o
r-^
«*
CM
r^
CO
LO
CO
CD
CO
LO
o
LO
"3"
+->
CO
O
CO
LO
r^.
CD
CO
CM
o
CM
*3-
i —
LO
(/) - — .
•r- 4-
00
CO
CO
O
O
CO
CO
r^
CM
LO
zn o- n3
r^
CO
CO
O
CM
<3"
r~.
CD
CO
00
1 —
r-^
CO
CO
-
>=1-
CM
CO
,— ^
*cr
LO
CO
«*
LO
r-»
co
CD
co
CD
P-.
CM
CO
r— CD
r^.
CO
o
i —
CD
r^.
LO
LO
i —
CO
^3-
O
00
E
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
r—
i —
1 —
CM
CO
1 —
—
4-
o *— «
n3 —
CO
LO
CM
CO
LO
r^
00
CD
CO
CD
LO
CO
Q-rX1 CD
t^
00
o
1 —
CD
r~
LO
LO
1 —
CO
«3-
o
co
"O
3 E
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
a;
-M -^ ^>
+->
CO <_>
ra
OO Q. »-—
3
Q ■—
E
1— +-> -^
CO
LO
CM
CO
LO
LO
co
co
r^.
00
CO
o
r-~
i— O CD
r~-
00
O
1 —
CD
f-.
LO
LO
i —
CO
^3-
o
co
oo
(0 E
oo
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
r~~
CM
CO
lo
LO
,
lo
,_
CM
<3"
■=3-
*3-
oo
'd-
CO
^3-
CO
LO
CO
LO
LO
o
r^
CD
r~
LO
CO
CD
to
O
LO
"3"
o
^J-
"^f
CD
LO
CO
CM
CD
o
r^
ai
3
4-
LO
CD
00
CO
CD
O
1
LO
<3-
O
<3-
o
O' fO
"3-
1 —
LT)
LO
*d-
CD
*3-
o
CO
00
r~
(O
CM
CM
CM
CM
LO
LO
00
CM
oo
>
,
<=*■
ai
+->
|M
c
oo *»«.
*3"
to
CM
*3-
LO
LO
CO
r~.
LO
r-^
CM
aj
Q CD
10
00
o
i —
CD
r~.
LO
LO
■ —
CO
i —
LO
CO
u
i— r- E
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
i.
« —
01
o
Q-
S-
^d-
r--
r~
r»
LO
CD
LO
LO
^3-
.C
o
lo
LO
<3-
CD
CM
r~
CO
«d-
o
LO
CD
CD
CD
-t->
4->
CD
LO
*3-
CD
LO
LO
oo
C\J
00
1—
^1-
LO
^f
o
LO *-*
LO
•r- 4-
cn
CD
co
CM
CD
O
LO
LO
p^
LO
CM
1 —
LO
:n cr ro
ir>
i —
t~--
lo
LO
i —
^1-
LO
1 —
o
CM
«T
r~-
CM
CM
CM
CM
r-~
LO
CD
CO
CM
CM
LO
-C
r_
ra
3
o
• i—
CO
>>
■M
4->
>
o
c
.O
S-
s_
>^
c
1 —
CD
a.
O
o
ai
<o
CU
(O
Q.
ra
3
3
3
CU
5
o
■z.
Q
""3
U_
s:
<X
s:
^3
^
<:
oo
307
ro c
o
cn-i-
c +->
•r- ro
E >
Z5 s_
i/> 0)
i/> </)
ro QJ
, —
"a
c
OJ
re
+J
c
re
(/)
S-
u_
a)
>
ai
T
OS
-t->
aj
+J
C
3
o
o
+J
c
in
■M
S
•i—
o
3
_
CTi
«3-
cn
«*
•zt
oo
LD
LD
CO
LD
CO
LD
i — en
ro
<3-
CO
CTl
O
CM
CTi
CO
r-^.
CM
E
CO
co
CO
co
CO
CO
CM
CM
i —
i —
CO
co
CM
4- — -
O
fO —
Q. i —
ZI
ld
CO
CO
CM
CO
r^
«=r
CO
CO
CTi
r--
co
CO
+-> j^ „\™ cn
ro
«3-
CO
CTl
O
CM
00
CM
LD
CM
fO O E
ro
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
t —
i —
CO
CO
CM
"O
QJ
OO Ol
4->
1=1
ro
|— 4-> »->
3
fO ~^
«3-
CM
LD
CD
LO
CO
CM
CM
r--
rn
^rl"
CM
</i
E
00 O CJ>
ro
1 —
■*t-
CO
i —
1 —
CTi
O
CM
co
i —
ID
CM
qj
E
oo
CO
co
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
i —
i —
CO
CO
CM
zs
OO
ro
>
O
CTl
LD
CO
o
o
LD
CTi
co
LD
r-»
O
co
r-~
*rrr
LD
CTi
«3-
00
r-~
CD
<*
co
ID
O
ai
CO
CO
LD
LD
ld
O
CTi
CD
CO
CM
r~~
CO
CTl
It-
CO
CO
CO
CD
■ o
^3-
LD
<3-
<JD
CM
LD
CM
CTi
■*->
CD' ro
id
00
CO
O
CM
^~
LD
CO
LD
LD
o
O
f-^
c
CO
CD
CO
i —
i —
CTl
QJ
■»
*
o
CM
QJ
Q-
^T
.rz
oo \
r^
o
LD
O
CM
LD
CTi
o
o
00
o
LD
+->
Q CJ>
*3"
CO
00
CTi
CM
LD
LD
O
o
r- h- E
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
1 —
i —
i —
CM
co
CM
en
ro
O
S-
LD
i —
CO
CM
CO
CO
CD
CO
O
CD
o
r^
^r
CM
r^
CO
LD
00
CTi
CO
LD
CD
LD
<3"
+->
CO
o
CO
LD
r--
CTl
CO
CM
o
CM
■zt
1 —
LD
(/) - — -
•r- 4-
CO
co
CO
O
o
CO
00
r~-
CM
LD
ia ro
r-~
00
CO
O
CM
"*
r^
CTl
CO
CO
i —
r-^
CO
CO
-
«*
CM
CO
^-^
r-~
oo
**•
LD
LD
oo
O
CTl
CM
r~-
CTi
•• r— cn
r^
CO
o
CTl
r^-
LD
LD
"3-
LD
o
CTi
4- E
CM
C\J
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
1 —
i —
i —
CM
CO
i —
O *-—
ro
a. *— -
ZS r—
+-> -^ --^
LD
r^.
CO
^rj-
LD
r^-
CTi
O
oo
CO
LO
CTi
ro (_> „\™ cn
r^.
CO
o
i —
CTi
r-~
LD
LD
i —
■^1-
LD
O
00
-a
■r- E
C\J
CNJ
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
i —
i —
i —
CM
CO
i —
qj
OO Q- - —
+->
a
ro
I— +->
ZS
ro i—
E
OO ^-
=3-
LD
CM
CO
LD
r-~
00
CTi
co
o
CTl
CO
CTi
O cn
r^.
co
o
CTi
r~~
LD
LD
■^1-
"3"
o
co
oo
E
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
"
LD
CM
CTi
r-^
LD
*d-
CM
m
co
CTl
CM
o
ld
CO
ld
LD
CO
P^
CO
LD
<3-
o
00
CO
l/l
CTi
cn
<£>
CM
LD
LD
LD
o
o
1 —
CO
CO
o
QJ
Zi
4-
■*
CTl
CO
CO
CTl
CD
r^
r-.
p^
oo
o
O" ro
«d-
r-»
LD
LD
■*
CTl
CO
co
1-^
CM
rO
CNJ
CNJ
CM
CM
LD
LD
r^
CM
co
:>
,
^t-
O)
-t->
C
OO -^
<3"
LD
CM
"=J-
LD
LD
CO
i —
LD
1-^
CM
Q>
O CO
ID
00
o
i —
CTl
r-~-
LD
LD
i —
co
i —
LD
00
o
.— h- E
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
i —
i —
• —
CM
CM
< —
s-
ro - —
QJ
O
O-
S-
>^t-
r^-
r^
r^
ID
cn
LD
LD
<^-
-C
o
LD
LD
■=3-
CTl
CM
r-^
CO
<3-
o
LD
CTi
CTi
m
+J
+J
CTi
ld
■=d-
CTl
LD
LD
00
CM
00
i —
■=3"
LD
>rd-
o
(/> »-^
LD
•r- l|-
CTi
CTi
co
CM
CTi
o
ID
LD
r~~
LD
CM
r-~-
LD
IO ro
uo
r-~
LD
LD
>*
LD
O
CM
<3-
r-~
CM
CM
CM
CM
|-~-
LD
CTi
CO
CM
CM
LD
-C
ro
CJ
QJ
>>
+->
3
+J
>
o
C
-Q
S-
S-
>>
£T
cn
a.
S=
o
o
QJ
ro
QJ
ro
a.
ro
ZS
13
zs
a;
5
o
z:
Q
•~3
U_
s:
<c
s:
^D
■"D
=1
t/i
308
■» —
CM
to
1 —
to
UO
cti
r^.
CTi
UO
00
CM
UO
oo
i— cr>
**
IT)
OO
CTi
o
CM
oo
to
00
CM
E
oo
OO
oo
oo
oo
oo
CM
CM
oo
oo
CM
M- ^
O
<T3 -—
Q- i —
3 **».
CTl
^
CTl
<3-
<3"
oo
UO
to
td-
*3-
oo
00
to
+a -^ Jf os
CO
^t"
oo
CTi
o
CM
CTi
«*
r»-
CM
re <_> E
CO
OO
OO
oo
oo
oo
CM
CM
1 —
1 —
OO
oo
CM
"O
CD
OO Q.
4->
Q
<T5
(_ +J ^
3
A3 ~-~~
LO
CM
r^
CM
oo
to
"3-
*3-
oo
o
«3-
1 —
oo
to
E
OO O Oo
OO
«*
OO
CTi
o
CM
oo
oo
1 —
CM
CD
E
OO
OO
oo
oo
oo
oo
CM
CM
1 —
1 —
oo
0O
CM
3
I/O
re
>
UO
o
CTl
o
l-~-
UO
r~-
*3-
cn
CTi
CTi
r^
CTl
to
to
CM
00
CTi
oo
*3-
oo
00
UO
r^
Hi
CM
to
r^
00
r-~
1 —
to
CM
^3-
o
UO
1 —
to
M-
OO
oo
oo
o
o
*tf-
to
1 —
r-^
UO
0O
r^
CO
+j
cr re
CO
CO
oo
o
CM
^f
to
CM
«a-
^1-
CTi
CTi
CM
c:
— ■
oo
o
oo
CTi
O)
«
«
o
CM
s_
OJ
Q-
,
-C
OO ^~.
r>»
o
U0
o
CM
uo
CTi
o
o
oo
o
to
+->
Q Cn
"*
oo
00
CTi
CM
to
UO
o
o
•— 1— E
OO
oo
oo
oo
oo
OO
CM
1 —
1 —
1 —
CM
oo
CM
CTl
rO - —
o
S-
to
r-^
1 —
OO
CM
oo
oo
o
00
1 —
1 —
o
o
o
r^
«3-
CM
r-~
oo
UO
oo
CTl
oo
to
o
to
«3-
4->
OO
o
OO
UO
r^
CTl
oo
CM
o
CM
«3"
1 —
uo
to '— -
•r- 4-
CO
00
oo
o
o
oo
co
r^
CM
to
ia re
r^
CO
oo
CD
CM
>3-
r^
oo
oo
00
1-^
oo
oo
— "
*d-
CM
*3-
oo
, ,
cn
CT.
to
to
1 —
CTi
CM
CTi
uo
1 —
UO
CM
■ • i— cn
l">
00
o
CTi
r^
to
to
*d-
to
oo
<*- E
CM
CM
oo
oo
CM
CM
CM
1 —
1 —
1 —
CM
oo
r—
o ^-
n3
Q. ^~~
3 1 —
4J^ ^
r-^
co
«3-
LO
to
00
o
CTi
oo
re o jf" cn
r^
00
o
I —
CTi
r~
to
to
1 —
'd-
to
1 —
O0
"O
•r- E
CNJ
CM
oo
oo
CM
CM
CM
CM
oo
CD
OO Q- « —
+->
Q
CO
h- +■>
3
re r—
£
OO ^.
■3-
to
CM
oo
UO
r-~
co
o
00
CM
UO
r-~
o
o cn
r>«.
00
o
1 —
CTi
r^
UO
to
1 —
*
UO
o
CTi
OO
E
CM
CM
oo
oo
CM
CsJ
CM
1
CM
oo
■"
to
0O
CM
1 —
r^
to
CD
UO
CTl
oo
^r
o
,
to
to
00
to
UO
CO
1 —
to
o
oo
UO
oo
UO
C/l
co
CM
oo
oo
to
r-~
CM
1 —
CM
CT.
to
to
r-.
CD
3
<4-
«*
O
00
oo
CTi
o
1 —
«3-
oo
CTi
<3-
CM
CO
o- re
>*
CM
r~~
U0
UO
<=J-
00
CM
VO
o
r-~
to
re
CM
CM
CM
CM
to
UO
r^
CM
r^
>
,
^a-
cd
+j
c
oo ~-^
"51-
to
CM
*d-
to
to
OO
r-~
to
r^
CM
CD
Q cn
to
00
O
CTi
r^
UO
UO
oo
to
CO
o
■— 1— E
CM
CM
oo
oo
CM
CM
CM
1 —
1 —
1 —
CM
CM
1 —
S-
re —
CD
o
O-
s_
*d"
i^.
r^
r»
UO
CTi
UO
to
*3-
-C
o
to
UO
*d-
CTl
CM
r^
oo
*3-
o
to
OO
CTi
CTi
+->
+->
CTl
to
■=*-
CTi
to
UO
co
CM
CO
1 —
<3-
to
>s-
o
to '-^
LT)
•i- t|_
CTl
CTl
co
CM
CTi
o
UO
UO
r^
to
CM
1 —
to
dz czr re
LO
r-~
un
UO
*3-
UO
o
CM
^r
r~-
CM
CM
CM
CM
r-»
to
CTl
oo
CM
CM
UO
£
CD
>o
-•->
re
3
+->
>
o
c
-Q
4.
z.
>»
c
1 —
cn
Q.
c
u
o
CD
re
CD
re
CL
re
3
3
3
CD
5
o
z
Q
•s
ll-
s:
<c
s:
■"3
•-}
<c
oo
309
400 -i
350 -
~ 300 -
250 -
50 -
Level of
Development
Salt Pickup
(tons/ocre/yeor)
High
High
Intermediate
Historical
NOTE- 50 Percentile Values without F 8 G Reservation
Oct
Dec
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 5. Average monthly TDS concentrations in the Yellow-
stone River at Billings at 50th percentile values.
Level of
Development
Salt Pickup
(tons/acre/year)
400 -i
350 -
— 300 -
m 25°"
Q
-? 200 -
^ 100 -
NOTE 90,h Percentile Values without F S G Reservation
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 6. Average monthly TDS concentrations in the Yellow-
stone River at Billings at 90th percentile values.
310
High Level of Development. Effects of the high level of development in
increasing mean monthly TDS concentrations in the Yellowstone River at Billings
are illustrated in figure 5 for median flows and in figure 6 for 90th percentile
low flows. The major increases in TDS under this level of development occur
from July to October in both flow regimes; however, effects are more noticeable
under drought conditions. As noted on other levels of development, the inclusion
of a one ton per acre per year salt pickup does not greatly increase TDS levels
through any of the months with the possible exception of August. Projected TDS
concentrations in the Yellowstone River at Billings under this level of develop-
ment are somewhat higher than those projected from the others, but not to a
large degree. As a result, conditions defining the high level of development
would not be expected to cause alterations in the TDS levels in the river in
sufficient magnitude to affect its use.
Other Parameters
In general, other parameters should show only minor changes under any level
of development. Possible exceptions might be evident during August and Sep-
tember of low-flow years. Nintieth percentile flows are reduced approximately
50 percent during these two months. Such a drastic reduction in flow could
adversely affect the river's ability to assimilate waste from the Billings
area and result in high water temperatures and reduced dissolved oxygen levels
that would temporarily stress the aquatic ecosystem. Data were not available
to quantify these effects.
Conclusion
Although both the intermediate and high levels of development would cause
measurable increases in TDS and a general reduction in water quality, the
Yellowstone River would still contain water of fairly high quality suitable
for almost all beneficial uses.
BIGHORN SUBBASIN
Total Dissolved Solids
The usual inverse relationship between TDS and discharge (Q) has been
obliterated because of storage and regulation by Yellowtail dam. Insufficient
below-darn records were available to develop monthly relationships, and a single
equation for all months failed to predict seasonal variations. Therefore, a
two-stage method was used to obtain initial TDS concentrations:
1) average monthly TDS concentrations for the 1968-74 period were
computed for the Bighorn River near St. Xavier (figure 7); and
2) thirty-nine months of concurrent water quality records (1966-69)
at two stations—Bighorn River near St. Xavier and Bighorn River
at Bighorn--were used to develop the following linear regression
equation (11):
TDSB = 57.1 + .93596 TDS$)( (r2 = .928)
311
1500 -i
1400 -
1300 -
1200 -
MOO -
1000 -
| 900 -
Time Weighted Average
800
700 -
2 600
* » * ♦
JUJL
500 -;:
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
•«♦
Oct ' Nov ' Dec ' Jan ' Feb ' Mar ' Apr ' May ' June ' July ' Aug ' Sept '
Figure 7. Average monthly TDS concentrations in the Bighorn
River near St. Xavier, 1968-74.
312
where:
TDSR is the average monthly TDS at Bighorn, and TDSS„ is the
average monthly TDS near St. Xavier.
Equation (11) was used with the average monthly TDS concentrations
near St. Xavier from figure 7 to compute average monthly TDS values
for the Bighorn River near Bighorn; this became the basis for LTDSj
of figure 2 and equation (2) (equations 1 through 10 are presented
in "Impacts of Water Withdrawals" in the Methods section of this
report).
Results for the Bighorn Subbasin are presented in tables 138 and 139 and
figures 8 and 9, and summarized below for the intermediate and high levels of
development . A low level of development was not formally simulated because
the effects on flow and TDS would have been insignificant.
Intermediate Level of Development. The annual average TDS concentration
increased 1.5 percent for the 50th percentile flow and 2.2 percent for the 90th
percentile flow with 0 salt pickup, and 1.9 percent 3.1 percent for 1 ton per
acre per year salt pickup. Most of the increase occurred in July and August.
At the 90th percentile flow level, for example, TDS concentrations in August
increased from 475 mg/1 (natural) to 526 mg/1 and 557 mg/1 for 0 and 1 ton per
acre per year salt pickup.
High Level of Development. Annual TDS concentrations were less than
2 percent higher than comparable values under the intermediate level of devel-
opment. Again, July and August accounted for most of the increase. August
increases ranged from 5.3 percent for 50th percentile flows with no salt pickup
to 32 percent for 90th percentile flows with one ton per acre per year salt
pickup. Salinity levels near the mouth of the Bighorn River would increase
somewhat in normal years. (Assuming 0 salt pickup, 50 percentile values in
August would increase from 475 mg/1 to 575 mg/1.) A series of dry years,
accompanied by the higher TDS concentrations, could adversely affect cropland
irrigated with the water. In general, however, irrigators should experience
no major new problems under either level of development.
Other Parameters
The increase in TDS will be accompanied by increases in hardness and SO4
(sulfate) concentration, all of which will render the water less desirable for
domestic purposes. Fiftieth percentile flow SO4 values for August, will increase
from 216 mg/1 to 288 mg/1 under the high level of development with 1 ton per acre
per year salt pickup (based on the equation SO4 = -54.0 + .56781 TDS (r* = .978).
Nintieth percentile flow values will exceed 300 mg/1 for the same month and level
of development. The recommended limits for drinking water are 250 mg/1 for SO4
and 500 mg/1 for TDS. These limits are presently exceeded during much of the
year, and they would be exceeded even more under the intermediate and high levels
of development.
Although no limits have been established for hardness, current Bighorn River
water is considered hard, averaging more than 300 mg;l as CaC03- Hardness will
313
r~-
r~-
CD
o
LO
o
in
r-
l*»
en
oo
i— en
ro
O"!
CTi
r^
CO
CM
«s-
CM
^3-
in
CD
E
LO
Lf)
ID
LD
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LD
in
ID
LO
14- ^_-
o
(O ^~-
Q. i—
3 ■»■».
-t-> ^ jf* lt>
ro o E
-a
<v
OO Q.
•*->
a
03
i— +-> -—
3
ro \
r^
o
id
LO
en
en
<d-
Ln
CO
en
LD
CM
CO
LO
E
wo oi
CM
CX>
cn
r-^
o
CM
CM
CO
O
CM
o
CU
E
LO
LO
un
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
in
Ln
LO
13
oo
*■ — '
ro
o
5>
CT>
CO
CM
r~-
o
00
LO
00
LO
o
<=1-
lo
id
CM
LO
o
CO
en
«3-
CO
ID
ID
m
O)
o
r^
LO
CM
CM
00
CO
co
^— N
r^
it-
o
CM
cn
O
r^»
r-~
en
LD
r^
o
LO
o
4->
er H3
«3-
>*
O
o
o
Ln
i —
CO
CO
CO
CO
en
CO
C
CU
o
S-
CD
Q.
,
_c
oo
CM
00
CM
CO
1 —
r»~
CO
en
CM
LO
CM
o
+J
q cn
CM
CO
CT»
1 —
o
CM
CM
CM
o
LD
r^.
O
CTi
o
.— i— E
lo
LO
LD
LO
LO
LO
LD
LD
LD
Ln
■=3-
LD
ID
en
n3 —
z.
r^
Ln
r~
o
CM
CM
CM
CM
^f
<3-
o
<T>
o
r—
o
LO
CM
«*
Ln
LO
LO
CO
<T>
^f
+->
*zt
00
co
^—
1 —
r—
<3-
r—
ID
*3-
i —
LD
en
to —
■r- H-
co
LO
CM
en
LO
CO
CO
Ln
00
co
co
o
ni cr ro
CO
o
o
o
CM
o
LO
Ln
r~.
cn
CO
^.
en
CO
ID
LD
o
cn
<3"
<3-
CO
CO
CM
CM
en
• • i— en
CM
en
<J\
r-«
CM
CM
co
LO
en
4- E
LO
LD
LO
Ln
LO
LO
LO
LD
LO
Ln
LD
in
in
O ~~~'
(T5
CL ^~-
3 1 —
+-> -^ ^
10 U„\™D1
T3
■r- E
CD
OO CX
+J
a
(Tj
h- •*->
3
n3 i—
E
00 ^
LO
"3"
Ln
cn
oo
CO
CM
CM
en
O
CO
t^
O CD
CM
cr>
cn
r^.
O
CM
CM
CO
^~
Ln
o
o
cn
00
E
LO
LO
LD
Ln
LO
LO
LD
LD
LO
Ln
LD
Ln
in
lo
r-~
r-~
cn
co
.
00
r-.
CO
,
co
CM
LD
«3-
i —
r-~
^-
en
CO
00
CM
en
^t-
CO
CM
00
LO
o
o
cn
co
CO
LO
T—
LO
r~-
*d-
CO
LO
CO
co
3
<4-
>*
<3-
«d-
CO
*d-
^f
CTi
LO
LD
o- ro
Ol
co
LO
<3-
*d-
o
Ln
LO
LO
co
LD
r^.
tO
CM
CM
CM
Ln
CM
i —
in
:>
CD
CM
-I-)
C
oo ^
CM
co
CM
CO
r^.
r~-
co
en
CM
ID
CM
00
a>
Q C7>
CM
00
cn
r-.
O
CM
CM
CM
o
in
r^
O
00
o
.— I— E
LO
ID
ID
Ln
LO
LO
LD
LO
LD
in
^1-
ID
LD
s-
ro
CD
O
Q_
S-
i--.
co
O
CO
r~-
ID
ID
LD
co
CO
>*
-C
o
lo
o
LO
r-~
00
o
cr>
o
*d-
"3"
•*->
-l->
CM
*i-
r-.
<^r
o->
p~-
Ln
ld
r^.
<d-
O
CO
CM
o
to ' — «
LO
•r- <4-
t-^
CO
O
■3-
■=d-
CTI
CM
o
'd-
CM
CO
CM
LO
zsz cy ro
CT>
00
r-«
■=3-
■=i-
CT>
CO
CO
LO
<=J-
r-.
CT>
CM
^t
CO
in
CM
-C
3
o
ai
>>
-t->
+->
>
O
c
£}
s-
S-
>>
c
CD
Q.
O
o
ai
<T3
0J
<o
a.
(0
3
3
3
a>
o
z:
Q
■"O
u.
Si
<=c
s:
•~o
•-}
<t
OO
314
*».,-
— ,
i —
CO
f—
O
CM
eg
cn
, —
o
r-~
VO
in
00
r— en
CO
<Ti
o
00
CO
CM
LD
^a-
cn
CNJ
«3-
E
CO
LD
CO
LD
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
iO
CO
LO
CO
i*_ —
o
ft! — -
CL i —
3 ^
+-> ^ jf cr>
its o E
T3
aj
O0 Q.
+->
Q
fO
|_ +J ,-,
3
«3 ^
CO
CO
r^
r^
O
O
ID
CM
00
o
cn
CO
o
l/>
E
WO Dl
CM
cn
cn
r--
CO
CM
^S"
CNJ
^3-
co
CM
a;
E
CO
in
ID
LD
CO
CO
<o
CD
CO
CO
in
Ln
CO
13
CO
ro
>
CM
CO
r^
r~-
r^
CO
co
O
1—
o
o
, —
CM
LD
CM
r^
O
CO
«d-
CO
00
cn
o
o
CO
«*
CD
CM
CM
cn
CO
r>-
i—
1 —
CO
r^
o
o
CM
o
•i—
H-
«d"
CO
<3-
CO
r^
CO
CO
cn
uo
o
o
r~-
, —
4->
cr us
co
CO
o
cn
O
ID
1 —
o
o
CO
CO
in
CO
C
<u
o
S-
<D
1—
O-
,
.c:
u~> -^
CM
CO
CM
CO
r-^
r^
CO
cn
CM
ID
CM
o
-M
q cx>
CM
00
cn
r-.
o
CM
CM
CNJ
o
in
r^
o
CTl
O
•— h- E
CO
ID
LO
LT)
CO
<o
CO
CO
CO
in
<3-
cn
in
cn
(TJ —
o
z.
i —
r-»
LD
r--
o
CM
CM
CM
i —
i —
CM
«*
»3-
o
cn
o
o
CD
CM
*d-
ID
CO
IO
CO
cn
'd-
+->
<3-
CO
CO
r—
i —
i —
«*
1 —
LO
■*
1 —
CO
cn
to - — -
•i- 4-
i —
CO
ID
CM
cn
CD
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
o
zn cr ro
CO
o
i —
O
o
r—
CM
o
CO
LD
1 —
cn
i —
CO
, ,
CM
<d-
r~~
CO
o
cn
cn
ID
CO
CO
r-~
o>
CO
cn
cn
r^
CO
CM
CO
r-.
o
CM
o
■••— E
CO
IX)
LT)
LD
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
in
IO
cn
CO
4-
O
<T3 »— «
Q_ r—
3 — .
+->.*: CD
« u „\N E
-a
CD
OO Q-
+->
Q
(0
1— 4-> ^-~
3
"3 -"■>.
00
CM
CO
CO
cn
cn
CO
«*
CO
cn
in
CO
CO
E
I/O CD
CM
cn
cn
r^.
o
CM
CM
CO
CO
in
o
O E
WD
LD
LD
ID
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
cn
cn
cn
CO
1/0
<d-
<3"
CO
CO
CO
CM
r^
CO
,
CO
>3-
CO
"=i-
o
r^
<5t
CO
r^
CM
o
r^
in
CO
cn
CO
(/)
CM
CM
cn
CO
CO
LD
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
«3-
CO
CD
3
4-
00
O
o
en
o
r-~-
00
«=f
<3-
>*
in
cn
i —
cr ro
oo
00
CO
CO
*3-
o
cn
CO
co
o
CO
CO
cn
(O
CM
CM
cn
CM
CO
>
»
O)
CM
+J
, —
c
C/0 --^
CM
CO
CM
CO
r~
r-.
CO
o->
CNJ
m
CM
CO
ai
a oo
CM
00
cn
r^
o
CM
oo
CM
O
UD
r^.
o
CO
o
i— 1— E
CO
Lf>
in
\D
CO
CO
CD
<o
co
in
"3"
LO
in
S-
(TJ «— '
aj
(J
O-
s_
f-^
co
o
CO
f-^
ID
ID
co
CO
CO
cn
.C
o
CO
o
CO
r^
CO
i —
O
cn
o
«3"
*J-
r—
-!->
+->
CM
<3-
r-~.
*d-
cn
r^
LD
CD
r^
«d-
O
co
CM
O
l/l - — *
in
•r- 4-
r^
CO
O
«3-
<3-
cn
CNJ
o
<*
CM
CO
CM
CO
zc cr <0
ON
00
r-»
•3-
«3-
cn
00
00
CO
*3-
r^
cn
CM
<d-
CO
cn
CM
sz
(
its
3
c
o
0)
>>
-!->
+->
>
CJ
c
-Q
S-
i.
>>
c
1 —
cn
Q.
o
o
CD
fO
CU
(O
Q.
<o
3
3
3
CU
5
o
z
O
o
Li_
2:
cC
s:
■"O
■"O
<x.
IS)
315
800 -i
cr 600
E
500 -
300 -
200 -
Level of
Development
Salt Pickup
(tons/acre/year)
High
High
Intermediate
Historical
NOTE; 50,n Percentile Values without F 8 G Flows
Oct Nov Dec Jan
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
horn
Figure 8. Average monthly TDS in the Bighorn River near Big-
at 50th percentile values.
800
700 -
■= 600
■v.
J
co 50°
Q
h-
I" 400 -
"c
o
2 300 -
0
O
0>
£ 200 -
100 -
Level of
Development
Salt Pickup
(tons/acre/year)
High
High
Intermediate
Historical
NOTE-- 90,h Percentile Values without F 8 G Flows
Oct Nov Dec
Feb Mor Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 9. Average monthly TDS concentrations in the Bighorn
River near Bighorn at 90th percentile values.
316
increase linearly with TDS. Therefore, problems associated with hard water--the
necessity for using more soap in cleaning and laundering, the formation of scales
in pipes, and the need to soften water before using it for certain purposes—will
increase proportionately. Projected increases in hardness are so slight that
consumers, principally residents of Hardin who draw their water supply from the
Bighorn River, would hardly notice the change.
Major reductions in flow (50 percent or more) projected under both levels
of development for July, August, and September, could have adverse impacts on
other water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen and temperature; this,
in turn, could produce deleterious effects on the aquatic ecosystem. Discharges
of 30,000 af (488 cfs) during July and August are less than historical extreme
low flows both before and after the completion of Yellowtail dam. Therefore,
it would be beneficial to maintain higher flows, of about 1000 cfs, in the river
during all months. This flow would enhance water quality and improve the
aquatic environment.
Summary
The intermediate level of development would produce only minor changes in
water quality. Degradation of water quality under the high level of develop-
ment would be somewhat more severe, especially in dry years. Bighorn River
water is naturally high in total dissolved solids, including sulfate, and is
hard. Values of all three of these parameters will increase, and thus render
the water less desirable for beneficial uses. Furthermore, the low flows
projected for July and August could result in detrimental changes in dissolved
oxygen and water temperatures, with concomitant injury to the aquatic ecosystem.
MID-YELLOWSTONE SUBBASIN
Total Dissolved Solids
Only six years (1969-74) of TDS records were available on the Yellowstone
River near Miles City, not enough to derive monthly relationships between TDS
and Q. A significant relationship was obtained using data for all months, but
it failed to accurately reflect the monthly variation in TDS. Consequently,
monthly values of TDS at Miles City were obtained from regression equations
between: (a) TDS and Q at Sidney, (b) TDS at Miles City and TDS at Sidney, and
(c) Q at Sidney and Q at Miles City. Basically, the computational procedure
was as follows:
1) Monthly values of Q were determined from hydrologic simulations.
2) The regression equation between Q at Sidney and Q at Miles City
was used to obtain Q at Sidney corresponding to Q from step 1.
The equation (figure 10) is:
(12) QS[) = -1.388 + 1.126 QMC
317
o
O
CO
00
10
_: f*-
I »
Q •-
00
O
■S a;
P CD
o
o
o
o"
o
m
*i!0 S9|!^ JD9N J9Aiy 9uo^smo||9a (JD) 96jDqosiQ X|q|uo^ : °^0
318
where: Q™ = discharge at Sidney, 1000 af
QMC = discharge at Miles City, 1000 af
3) Q5D from step 2 and the appropriate monthly TDS-Q relationship
for the Yellowstone River near Sidney (table 153) were used to
obtain TDS for Sidney.
4) The regression equation between TDS at Miles City and TDS at
Sidney (figure 11) was used to obtain TDS at Miles City corresponding
to Q from step 1 .
The procedure described is somewhat circuitous, but it more accurately
reflects monthly variations in TDS than the use of a single relationship for
all months. Results are presented in tables 140-142 and in figures 12 and 13,
and are discussed below.
Low Level of Development. Diversions and return flows under this level
of development would produce minor changes in TDS concentrations. Annual values
would increase 3.0 percent (3.2 percent with a salt pickup of 1 ton per acre per
year) with 50th percentile flows, and 3.7 percent (4.2 percent with salt pickup
of 1 ton per acre per year) with 90th percentile flows. Significant increases
occur only during July to September, when TDS values average 9.6 percent (10.1
percent with salt pickup of 1 ton per acre per year) higher at 50th percentile
flows and 10.9 percent (11.7 percent with salt pickup of 1 ton per acre per
year) higher at 90th percentile flows. August increases are approximately
15 percent at 50th percentile flows and 20 percent at 90th percentile flows.
Projected increases in TDS would not be sufficient to affect use of the water
for common beneficial uses. September values, for example, would be 507 mg/1
at 50th percentile flows and 565 mg/1 at 90th percentile flows.
Intermediate Level of Development. Annual average TDS values would be
4.0 percent (4.8 percent with salt pickup) higher than for natural concentra-
tions at 50th percentile flows, and 5.1 percent (6.8 percent with salt pickup)
higher at 90th percentile flows. Most of the increase would occur during the
July-to-October period. Monthly TDS increases would be generally less than
10 percent except during August, when increases would be 21 percent (24 percent
with salt pickup) under 50th percentile flows, and 33 percent (37 percent with
salt pickup) under 90th percentile flows. Also, during July there would be an
increase of 15 percent (17 percent with salt pickup) under 90th percentile
flows. Projected TDS concentrations should pose little or no additional threat
to current beneficial uses. Only August and September concentrations would be
significantly higher than naturally occurring values: 50th percentile values
would increase from 389 mg/1 to 472 mg/1 during August, and from 473 mg/1 to
518 mg/1 during September; 90th percentile values would increase from 459 mg/1
to 610 mg/1 during August, and from 595 mg/1 to 583 mg/1 during September.
High Level of Development. Average annual TDS increases would be less than
10 percent. Average annual values are misleading, however, because of the
weighting effect of June, which produces the largest flow (26 to 28 percent of
annual volume) and the lowest TDS concentrations of any month. Some months
would show substantially higher increases that would render the water less
319
Q
en
oo
Q
I-
co
at
m
in 10
-O TJ
o
l_
-Q
o
C
OJ
<
x:
Q
c
(/)
o
</>
■i—
Q
+->
1-
no
o
CD >>
S- CD
u
C
00 "O
O f-
o
o
ro
.-I C
cu s-
S- <D
3 >
■r- a:
li-
^4!D saiw JD3fg jaAjy auo;sMO||3A (|/6uu) sal A"mjuow 36dj9a\/
OW
SOI
320
3 e
on C3
> .c:
■r- to
CC -r-
"" —
<s-
o
1 —
to
*3"
CM
to
r—
oo
P-~
en
CO
to
r- C7)
p^
p»
to
p-»
co
p^
00
OO
LO
to
^3"
E
lo
LO
to
to
LO
LO
LO
*3-
CM
OO
LO
LO
*3-
4_
O
(T3 -—»
CL r—
3 ->»
-t-> .*: jf en
m u £
-o
<u
O0 CL
+->
cn
CO
I— +-> — »
3
fD --.
oo
co
p~.
p-»
CO
CO
oo
o
OO
LO
O0
LO
>^-
CO
E
oo o en
p-.
to
LO
to
r--.
to
00
oo
i —
i —
LO
to
'd-
Ol
E
LO
LO
to
to
LO
LO
LO
<3-
CM
OO
LO
LO
^3"
3
1/1
— *
CO
>
to
LO
CM
CO
oo
oo
oo
*3-
1 —
LO
cn
o
O
oo
r~~
o
i —
cn
oo
to
cn
i —
00
^~
cn
LO
O)
LO
LO
1 —
cn
CO
LO
o
r—
r-^
^3-
to
p~-
«*
• r—
4-
oo
oo
r-~.
*3-
LO
«d-
to
cn
LO
tO
o
CO
00
+->
o- <o
CM
oo
cn
CM
cn
CM
OO
i —
OO
P--
«d-
C
OO
oo
CM
i —
CM
CM
OO
'd-
r—
«3-
1 —
CM
OO
0)
u
"=3-
S-
(U
o.
f
_c
OO \
O
CO
p^
CM
o
CO
CvJ
C\J
■*
o
cn
LO
CO
+->
Q cn
to
r-~
LO
p^
00
to
CO
i —
I —
CM
LO
«3"
CM
o
■—I— E
LO
LO
to
to
LO
LO
LO
•=i-
CM
CM
<3-
LO
«^"
en
CO » —
a
i~
O
CO
i —
"=3"
to
cn
i —
LO
cn
( —
cn
CM
LO
o
p-~
•li-
*3"
cn
«d-
CM
o
CM
LO
LO
■*->
to
es
i —
i —
"=3"
to
CM
i —
oo
LO
o
CM
r-^
co -—•
■r- <4-
o
CM
i —
CM
o
CO
«tf
OO
o
P^
LO
CM
LO
■jz cy (T3
>*
CM
CM
cn
oo
cn
OO
CM
CO
^1"
1 —
LO
CM
oo
OO
CM
CM
CM
oo
LO
CM
LO
CM
CM
00
, ,
CM
o
O
«sf
CM
00
cn
OO
cn
OO
en
o
^3"
en
00
CM
CO
cn
<d-
CO
-=3-
CM
■=3-
1 —
>3-
00
•• ■— E
<d-
LO
LO
LO
LO
*3-
LO
OO
CM
CM
^3-
LO
OO
4- -_^
o
<o — >
CL i—
3 —
+-> .^ en
T3 u AN £
T3
CD
00 CL
■»->
Q
CO
1— +J ^~.
3
T3 ~--~
co
CO
P^
cn
<3-
LO
r»»
CM
r^
CM
p~-
P~-
OO
E
oo cn
CO
r-~
CO
^3-
CO
^f
CM
«^-
P--
■*
o
00
O E
<*
LO
LO
LO
LO
■=3-
LO
OO
CM
CM
^i-
LO
OO
00
' —
LO
o
LO
CM
to
cn
LO
CM
to
P^
*3"
P-.
00
o
LO
^-
CO
CO
OO
oo
O
LO
"=3"
to
CM
oo
CM
00
CM
oo
cn
O
^i-
^—
cn
o
P-.
o>
3
4-
CM
cn
r-^
to
CM
CO
LO
00
cn
o
LO
CM
P»
cr <v
to
o
oo
cn
o
00
to
CO
CM
00
o
*3"
O
fT3
«=J-
<3-
oo
CM
oo
"=3-
«5t
cn
r—
o
OO
oo
to
>
<D
CM
p~
p^
-M
C
OO ^.
r —
p-.
CM
O
CM
OO
LO
■=3-
LO
cn
OO
CM
0)
Q cn
p-~
P--
cn
*3-
cn
<3"
o
LO
LO
co
P^
P^
o
•— 1— E
<3-
LO
LO
LO
LO
■*
LO
oo
CM
CM
oo
^3"
OO
S-
03 » —
0)
O
O-
s-
o
LO
LO
to
co
oo
cn
<3-
o
^3"
co
C0
o
-C
o
to
CTl
LO
CM
oo
p-~
p-
o
cn
CM
OO
LO
•=3"
+J
+J
cn
O
LO
LO
^3"
co
<=!■
OsJ
LO
P*.
o
• —
to
o
CO - — -
lo
•.- 4-
*3"
<3"
co
P-.
cn
*3-
o
co
00
o
:r cy co
00
"*
o
o
p^
p^
r~-
oo
«d-
LO
CM
«*
■=*-
*3-
oo
oo
oo
*3-
«*
o
OvJ
CM
CM
^t-
«d"
CM
00
-c
,
ITS
3
o
•r—
<u
>>
-t->
-t->
>
o
c
.a
S-
s-
>>
c
cn
CL
c
o
o
CD
CO
a>
co
CL
CO
3
3
3
cu
5
o
z
Q
■"3
Li_
s:
<c
s:
T
>"3
<=£
O0
321
ir>
r-^
CD
Ln
CD
LO
*J"
oo
CD
o
ro
r^
CD
00
r^
LO
CO
00
r^.
CD
^T
oo
OO
CD
in
E
LO
in
LO
LO
in
Ln
in
,^-
CM
OO
LO
in
*d-
4-
O
fO
.--,
O-
3
+-> -^ Jf
CD
(O O
E
"O
OJ
00 Q-
-t->
Q
fO
1— -l->
• — »
3
(O
cd
o
CD
CD
i —
o
LD
CD
LO
CM
O
oo
O
C/l
E
oo o
CD
r-^
r»~
Ln
LO
r-^
r-~
CO
OO
OO
00
in
01
E
LO
in
LO
LO
Ln
in
Ln
*d-
CM
OO
LO
Ln
<a-
3
i/)
f0
>■
CM
o
r~-
oo
CD
*3-
CM
1^
r^
Ln
^f
r-^
r^.
CD
CO
o
00
O
CD
oo
oo
LD
r~-
LO
LO
in
OJ
>*
cd
oo
CD
CO
Ln
«3-
CO
«*
in
•3"
00
r-~
• 1—
4-
o
o
=d-
1 —
CM
■ —
OvJ
LD
o
CD
CD
CD
O
4->
o-
rO
CM
CO
CD
CM
CD
CM
CM
LO
o
«^"
CD
^t-
c
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
OO
>3-
•^i-
CM
0)
•t
«
o
«*
s_
cu
Q.
,
-C
oo
O
00
r-~
CM
o
00
CM
CM
'd-
o
CD
Ln
co
+->
Q
CD
LO
1 —
Ln
1^
CO
LO
00
CD
ld
■=3"
OvJ
o
r— 1—
E
IT)
U0
LO
LO
Ln
LO
m
>*
CM
CM
<3-
in
<3"
CD
res
o
s_
O
00
i —
<3-
LO
CD
■ —
in
CD
1 —
CD
CM
m
o
r^
^-
**
CD
<=i-
CM
o
CM
LO
m
4J
lo
o
r—
i —
>3-
LO
CM
■ —
00
Ln
o
CD
r~~
l/l
4-
o
CM
CD
o
co
**
oo
o
r-»
Ln
CM
in
hi cr
(O
■a-
CM
CM
CD
oo
CD
oo
CM
CO
■3-
i —
in
CM
CO
oo
CM
CM
CM
oo
in
CM
in
CM
CM
00
^-^
r-«
LO
Ln
CD
LO
oo
CD
O
OO
*3-
o
CD
CD
CM
CO
CD
«3"
CD
in
CM
ir>
00
00
CM
CD
E
>*
LO
Ln
Ln
in
■=s-
in
oo
CM
CM
«3"
m
0O
4-
o
(0
,~^
Q.
i —
3
+-> -^ ~\r
1 CD
rd U
E
"O
OJ
OO CL
+->
Q
<e
1— 4J
. — *
3
rC
oo
CD
CD
r^
00
CD
LD
CD
co
CM
co
r~.
E
oo o
CD
CD
CM
r~-
00
oo
CO
*d-
OJ
<*
r-.
1 —
IT—
00
E
<3-
LO
Ln
Ln
m
^t"
in
O0
CM
CM
"*
in
OO
oo
,_
r^
LO
o
*d-
CM
.
oo
OO
oo
o
**■
oo
IT)
r^
<d-
O
■=3-
CD
r^
CO
o
oo
CM
to
i —
LO
^d-
CD
CM
"=3"
CM
LD
1 —
CM
r~~.
i —
o
OJ
3
4-
en
LO
«*■
CO
CD
in
CM
Ln
"vt-
oo
'd-
o
r—
cr
rC
in
O
OO
CD
CD
00
LD
r-^
1 —
in
CO
0O
o
rC
<3-
<*
oo
CM
CM
«*
■3"
CD
o
CM
oo
Ln
>
CM
,
r-~
OJ
+->
c
oo
r^
r-~
CM
O
CM
oo
m
■=3"
in
CD
oo
CM
OJ
Q
CD
i —
r^
CD
*J-
CD
"=*■
O
Ln
m
00
r-^
r-~
o
■— 1—
E
«=J-
m
in
Ln
Ln
«*
in
OO
CM
CM
OO
«*
oo
S-
r0
Ol
o
O-
s_
o
m
Ln
LO
CO
0O
CD
«*
o
«3-
CO
CO
o
-C
o
LO
en
Ln
CM
oo
r^
r~~
o
CD
CM
oo
in
*d-
+->
+->
en
o
tr>
Ln
^3"
00
«3-
CM
in
r^.
o
r—
LO
o
1/5
m
4-
^j-
<3-
oo
r^
CD
"3-
o
CO
00
o
:c o-
ro
co
«=f
o
o
r^.
r^
r-»
oo
>*
ir>
CM
<*
«d-
<d-
oo
oo
OO
■^r
•^i-
o
CM
CM
CM
^r
<d"
CM
00
.c
,
3
C
o
OJ
>>
+->
+j
>
o
c
JD
S-
S-
>■>
c
CD
o_
o
o
0J
ro
0)
rO
Q.
<o
3
3
3
OJ
5
o
z
Q
o
U-
s:
<C
s:
>"3
•~3
d
O0
322
> -C
•I- c/1
CU -t-
-^
oo
U0
CO
CO
UO
, —
oo
, —
, —
UO
00
00
en
r- CT>
O0
CO
ts
cn
CT)
oo
CTi
CO
CM
CO
o
si-
CO
E
ID
no
CO
CD
UO
UO
UO
sl"
CM
CO
00
CD
^1-
i*- --'
o
ro — -
CL r—
rs ^-.
■p^ jCro
ro O E
"O
CU
GO Q-
+->
Q
rC
|_ 4_> ^~~
13
rd "^
CTl
CO
CM
CNJ
is
CO
O
CM
CO
CM
cn
oo
CO
E
WO Dl
00
1 —
CD
is
i —
is
CTi
UO
1 —
uo
CO
CM
uo
CU
E
LO
m
CD
CD
uo
uo
UO
sf
CM
CO
r-.
co
sl-
3
oo
1 — '
(0
>
00
ID
CD
"3-
CO
oo
o
CO
r».
uo
CM
uo
00
sf
uo
co
00
00
is
o
CNJ
CO
«d-
UO
LO
ai
1 —
O
sf
cn
uo
si-
CM
00
CNJ
en
sf
CD
o
14-
o
CM
LD
CM
CO
CM
CO
CM
CNJ
1 —
cn
+->
O" ro
1 —
CM
o
CO
1 —
00
i —
00
i —
uo
cn
CO
o
c
ro
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
CO
cn
ai
o
CO
cu
a.
.
-C
OO ^s.
O
CO
rs
CNJ
o
co
CM
CM
«3"
o
cn
UO
00
-t->
r— Q C7>
CO
is
LT)
is
CO
CO
00
cn
uo
«3-
CM
o
rO 1— E
LO
LO
CD
CD
uo
uo
UO
sl-
CNJ
CM
sr
uo
*d-
cn
O
O
co
i —
<=r
CO
CTl
i —
uo
cn
i —
cn
CM
uo
+->
r-~
sl-
sT
CTv
sf
CNJ
O
CM
UO
LO
CO
co
o
i —
r—
si"
CO
CM
^—
CO
uo
o
OO
r^
ZC it-
o
CNJ
CTl
o
00
S*
CO
o
rs
uo
CNJ
uo
CD" ro
si-
CNJ
CM
CTl
CO
CTl
CO
CM
CO
sr
r~~
UO
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
CNJ
CO
UO
CM
uo
CM
CNJ
oo
sl-
,_^
CO
CO
CM
UO
UO
is
CTi
00
cn
00
r— Dl
o
CO
cn
O
UO
CTl
uo
CO
UO
cn
«d-
SI-
en
E
uo
Lf)
uo
CO
UO
sf
uo
CO
CM
CM
uo
LT)
CO
4- »
O
ro f— -
Q. i—
23 ^
+J ^ A" W
ro (_> E
-a
cu
00 Q-
-t->
Q
re
(— +j ,-.
3
rO —
o
LO
CNJ
rs
CTi
CNJ
UO
cn
co
r~^
cn
CM
E
I/IO Dl
o
CM
00
CTl
CO
00
uo
CO
sr
CO
CNJ
CO
cn
E
LO
LO
UO
UO
uo
sf
uo
CO
CM
CNJ
UO
LO
CO
oo
CO
CNJ
is
is
CO
uo
uo
o
o
r^
CM
o
sf-
00
00
sl-
CO
CO
uo
o
co
CNJ
o
10
co
o
CO
CTl
o
1 —
1 —
uo
cn
o
00
CNJ
cn
<u
rs
it-
CO
CO
UO
st"
o
CO
1 —
uo
st-
co
uo
i —
cn
er ro
si-
<T>
CM
CO
CTi
rs
uo
CO
CO
co
oo
sf
re
sa-
CO
CO
CNJ
CM
*
^1-
cn
o
cn
CNJ
CM
>
CNJ
r^
aj
+■>
C
GO •»>.
ls
rs
CNJ
o
CNJ
CO
uo
sl-
uo
cn
CO
CM
CU
Q CD
r^
is
cn
ST
CTl
<=f
o
UO
uo
oo
r^
r-»
O
r— h- E
st-
LO
uo
UO
UO
si-
uo
CO
CNJ
CM
CO
sj-
CO
1_
ro «— '
cu
O
Q.
S-
o
LD
uo
co
CO
co
CTi
si-
O
^3-
00
00
O
sz
o
CO
<T>
uo
CM
CO
is
rs
o
en
CNJ
CO
UO
sT
4->
+->
O0
o
uo
UO
s-
co
«d-
CM
uo
is
o
' —
CO
o
CO <■ — «
LO
•r- <4-
«d"
«3-
co
is
cn
sf
O
00
00
O
IO ro
co
sj-
o
o
rs
i —
rs
CO
sr
uo
CM
sl-
sl-
5
co
CO
CO
s}-
sf
o
CM
CM
CNl
<3-
sj-
CM
CO
-C
,
r0
3
o
•r-
CU
>,
+->
+J
>
CJ
c
.a
S-
S_
>>
c
cn
Q.
C
(_)
o
d)
rO
CD
(O
o.
r0
3
3
3
CU
5
o
■z.
O
■"3
Ll_
s:
<£
s:
■-3
•I)
<£
OO
323
Level of
Development
Salt Pickup
(tons/acre/year)
IOOO -i
900 -
800 -
—•
700
V.
o>
E
600
CO
a
t-
_>»
500
400
300 -
200 -
100 -
High
High
Intermediate
Historical
T~-
-t
i?
H*"'
i ; ' >
f /
ii /
f//
*?
..£/
V1*^
NOTE: 50th Percentile Values
without F 8 6 Reservation
without F 8 G Flows
Oct
Nov
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 12. Comparison of historical and simulated TDS concen-
trations in the Yellowstone River near Miles City at 50th percentile
values.
324
1000 -
900
800 -
= 700
a>
co 600 "
Q
I-
■f1 500 -
c
o
2
400 -
o>
o>
o
I 300 -
200 -
100 -
Level of
Development
High
High
Intermediate
Historical
Salt Pickup
(tons/acre/year)
I
0
0
NOTE: 90th Percentile Values
without F 8 G Reservation
without F a G Flows
Oct
Nov
Dec Jan
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 13. Comparison of historical and simulated TDS concentra-
tions in the Yellowstone River near Miles City at 90th percentile
values.
325
desirable for beneficial uses, especially during August, September, and October
of dry years. At 50th percentile flows, August and September concentrations
would be 36 percent (41 percent with salt pickup of 1 ton per acre per year),
and 14 percent (16 percent with salt pickup of 1 ton per acre per year) higher
than existing levels. Corresponding 90th percentile values would be 66 percent
(76 percent) and 15 percent (19 percent) higher. Resulting concentrations
would shift the water from a medium to a high salinity hazard (Richards 1954)
during August, September, and October under both 50th percentile flows and
90th percentile flows. TDS concentrations would exceed 500 mg/1 eight months
of the year at 50th percentile flows—three more than under current conditions.
TDS concentrations would exceed 500 mg/1 nine months of the year at 90th per-
centile flows—one more than under current conditions, and 600 mg/1 four months
of the year— two more than under current conditions. As shown in figures 12
and 13 the high level of development would degrade water quality significantly
more than the intermediate level of development during the July-October period,
particularly during low-flow years. Irrigators, municipalities, and industry
would experience higher costs and more management problems associated with
the use of more saline water.
Other Parameters
Reduction in flow and increases in TDS concentrations would result in the
degradation of other water quality parameters. Common dissolved constituents
are approximately linear functions of TDS and would show proportionate increases.
Sulfate, for example, would increase from 194 mg/1 to 273 mg/1 as TDS increases
from 450 mg/1 to 600 mg/1 (S04 = -42.18 + .5256 TDS; r = .995). The Montana
standard for sulfate in the Yellowstone River is 250 mg/1. The SAR would in-
crease slightly (SAR = 0.4687 + .00264 TDS; r = .950), from about 1.66 to 2.05
as TDS increases from 450 mg/1 to 600 mg/1, but the water would still have a
low sodium hazard (Richards 1954). Each hundred-unit increase in TDS would
increase the hardness of the water by approximately 40 mg/1. Since the water
is already hard (200 mg/1 as CaC03 at a TDS of 380 mg/1), further increases
would be undesirable.
Nutrients levels may rise because of increased use of fertilizers on new
irrigation lands and because of the concentrating effect of reduced streamflows.
Water temperatures would increase slightly but probably less than 1°C. Diurnal
variations in temperature and dissolved oxygen would increase slightly.
Summary
The low level of development would produce a slight reduction in water
quality. Degradation would be somewhat more severe under the intermediate level,
but major beneficial users would probably experience few long-term adverse
impacts. The high level of development, however, would bring significant de-
leterious effects on water quality, particularly during low-flow years. Water
quality would not degrade to the point that the water would be rendered unsuit-
able for beneficial uses, but it would require more costly treatment or more
careful management.
326
TONGUE SUBBASIN
Total Dissolved Solids
Nineteen years of monthly records (1951-1969) on the Tongue River near
Miles City were used to derive the regression equations between TDS and Q listed
in table 143. All monthly equations are significant at the 1 percent level.
The equations represent historical conditions with the existing Tongue River
Reservoir at 68,000 af capacity in place. The intermediate and high levels of
development project a 320,000-af reservoir at the same site, and the low level
assumes a 112-af reservoir. Enlargement of the Tongue River Reservoir would
modify the conditions upon which the regression equations were based. The
extent of the modifications cannot be accurately predicted. Therefore, first
the equations in table 143 were used unaltered for all levels of development
according to the methodology illustrated in figure 2 (in the Methods section
of this report). To check the results, TDS values at Miles City were recomputed
based on water quality and discharge records for the Tongue River at the state
border, assuming complete mixing in the reservoir according to equations (8),
(9), and (10) (in "Impacts of Water Withdrawals" under the Methods section),
and following the logic of figure 2. Results of the first simulations are
presented in tables 144-147 and in figures 14 and 15, and are summarized
briefly below. Note that in most instances, monthly increases in TDS concen-
trations are much more severe than those indicated by annual values, which
reflect the diluting effect of the spring runoff.
Low Level of Development. Annual changes in TDS concentrations showed a
1 percent decrease (53 percent increase with a salt pickup of 1 ton per acre
per year) at 50th percentile flows and a 16 percent (28 percent with a salt
pickup of 1 ton per acre per year) increase at 90th percentile low flows. In-
creases from July through November would be substantial, averaging 48 percent
(87 percent with salt pickup of 1 ton per acre per year) higher at 50th percen-
tile flows and 79 percent (149 percent with salt pickup) higher at 90th percen-
tile flows. Actual concentrations would average 746 mg/1 (944 mg/1 with salt
pickup) at 50th percentile flows, compared with 502 mg/1 under current conditions
August concentrations would increase by factors of 2.4 (3.9 with salt pickup)
and 2.0 (3.0 with salt pickup) at 50th percentile and 90th percentile flows,
or from 509 mg/1 to 1238 mg/1 (1973 mg/1 with salt pickup) and from 765 mg/1 to
1565 mg/1 (2300 mg/1 with salt pickup).
Intermediate Level of Development. Annual increases in TDS concentrations
would be 20 percent (39 percent with salt pickup of 1 ton per acre per year) at
50th percentile values, and 39 percent (78 percent with salt pickup) at 90th
percentile values. Values in July and August at 50th percentile flows would
increase by factors of 2.4 (3.9 with salt pickup) to 3.1 (5.1 with salt pickup).
TDS concentrations at 50th percentile flows would exceed 600 mg/1 10 months of
the year; TDS concentrations at 90th percentile flows would exceed 679 mg/1
e^ery month of the year. Concentrations in July and August would exceed 1149
mg/1 (1884 mg/1 with salt pickup) at 50th percentile flows. TDS concentrations
would exceed 1277 mg/1 (2012 mg/1 with salt pickup) from June through October
at 90th percentile flows, making the water undesirable for most beneficial
uses.
327
TABLE 143. Regression equation between TDS concentrations and monthly discharge
(Q) in the Tongue River near Miles City, 1951-1969.
Month
Best Fit
Equation
r2
Significance
Jan
log TDS - 2.968046
- .00001178
Q
.373
a
Feb
log TDS = 2.8869196
- .0000093196
Q
.718
a
Mar
TDS = 1445.71
- 217.25081
log Q
.539
a
Apr
TDS = 1524.68
- 217.70712
log Q
.867
a
May
TDS = 1348.75
- 191.64864
log Q
.546
a
June
TDS = 1221.21
- 189.03383
log Q
.750
a
July
TDS = 1513.50
- 260.79199
log Q
.815
a
Aug
TDS = 1686.28
- 301.87476
log Q
.819
a
Sept
log TDS = 3.51775
- .20078
log Q
.869
a
Oct
TDS = 1647.14
- 265.4541
log Q
.787
a
Nov
log TDS - 3.69492
- .21753
log Q
.627
a
Dec
TDS - 2375.20
- 408.74805
log Q
.420
a
All months
TDS = 1672.10
- 267.88599
Tog. 0
.583
a
NOTEr TDS concentrations represent average monthly figures in mg/1; Q
figures are in acre-feet.
Significant at 1 percent level.
High Level of Development Without Fish and Game Flows. Because of the
large storage capacity and the elimination of flows for instream purposes,
flows and concentrations would be fairly uniform throughout the year, consisting
essentially of irrigation return flow except during the June 50th percentile
values when excess water must be released. Annual TDS concentrations would be
41 percent (88 percent with salt pickup of 1 ton per acre per year) and 60 per-
cent (128 percent with salt pickup) higher than historical values, and would
average about 1180 mg/1 (1900 mg/1 with salt pickup) and 1280 mg/1 (2000 mg/1
with salt pickup) during most months at 50th percentile and 90th percentile
flows, respectively.
328
V
</>
>
<u
'-
03
u
*
en
( )
< )
r —
S-
Q.
rO
(/>
a;
(1)
<r
U
L_
E=
Z3
J
O
in
(/J
l/l
0)
03
a:
„
(/i
1.
c
0)
•1 —
>
03
Ct
Cl
1 —
00
cn
00
00
0
CO
CM
CM
LO
O
O
CM
LO
m
1-^
CT>
00
0
00
r^-
CM
O
O
CTi
en
i — CD
co
CO
00
r--
r-~
LO
LO
LO
CTl
CO
CO
r^
E
i+- -~^
1 —
CM
CM
CM
O
03 <"-»
a. i—
LD
CM
cn
r-^
O
co
CM
CO
, —
CO
CO
LO
,
3 ■»««,
CO
LO
r-~
r-~-
cn
1-^
LO
0
CO
CO
CO
CM
<JD
+-> -^ Jf en
C\J
CO
co
r««
LO
LO
LO
LO
00
CTl
CTi
CO
r~-
(0 U E
-a
0)
oo Q.
+->
Q
03
|— +j -— -
i —
i — i —
CM
LO
0
LO
1 —
O
CO
*3-
LO
LO
LO
r-^
CM
13
03 *>*.
to
CM
LO
LO
00
r~-~
LO
00
•<d-
LO
LO
LO
CM
LO
E
I/IO Ol
O
CO
co
r-~
LO
LO
LO
LO
1 —
LO
LO
<3-
r^
<1J
•1—
E
*
•*
*»
•»
3
oo
* —
1 —
1 —
1
i —
03
>
CM
CO
r-s
CTl
«3"
O
LO
r>-
CTl
LO
LO
0
LO
lo
•=3-
LO
r^-
co
LO
r--.
CO
r-~.
CO
CTl
d)
lo
cr.
LO
CO
CO
CM
CO
CO
«3-
CO
CO
r~-
it-
^
LO
r-~.
LO
CM
LO
>^-
CM
+->
er 03
1 —
1 —
1 —
!•>
C
<D
O
CD
Q_
'""""
-C
OO ^-.
CM
0
O
O
O
co
LO
CO
0
«3-
LO
O
CO
-t->
Q cn
LO
LO
CM
<3-
r~-
^r
LO
LO
^f
O
LO
O
CM
o
i— 1— E
r-~
r»«
co
r^.
LO
LO
LO
LO
<^-
LO
r~.
CO
LO
Ol
03 -w
si
CM
CO
CM
■3-
LO
^3-
CO
CTl
'd-
LO
r-«
0
CO
O
LD
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
1 —
LO
CO
0
CT.
CO
+J
1 —
LO
CO
1 —
CO
LO
CTl
^3-
LO
1 —
1 —
1 —
<d"
i/l ^—
•i- 4-
CM
LO
LO
co
LO
CO
CO
CM
CO
CO
1 —
1 —
CM
IO 03
1 —
1 —
1 —
00
, s
r— .
00
LO
O
CTl
en
LO
0
co
LO
CTl
CO
CO
CO
^^
^3"
CTi
O
LO
LO
O
CTl
r-~
CO
CTl
r~
CTi
LO
i— CD
r-.
r-.
CO
1-^
LO
LO
LO
"=3-
CM
<=*
CTi
LO
»a-
E
*
4- ^-
O
03 «—»
CL 1—
LO
<=3-
1^-
O
CO
CM
LO
CM
CO
LO
*3"
00
3 »»v
r^
co
LO
LO
O
CO
r~
CO
r--
O
LO
LO
+J^AND1
r-»
r^
1 —
r-.
LO
LO
LO
^d-
CM
*3-
LO
LO
^3-
03 (J E
*
■o
CD
1/5 CL
+->
Q
03
|— +j ,-,
CM
CO
LO
O
LO
CTl
LO
CTl
CM
CO
«=J-
co
3
03 -v^
CO
LO
1 —
<=3-
"=3-
Cn
CO
LO
P--
■3-
CO
■*
E
CO O CT>
lo
r-~
r^
r^
LO
■=3-
LO
^J-
CM
'J-
CM
LO
*d-
E
"
O0
1
LO
LO
O
0
LO
CM
CTl
r^-
LO
^J-
LO
O
1^-
00
LO
CTt
CM
■=3-
CM
O
LO
CTi
CO
LO
1/1
LO
CO
CO
CO
CM
co
t—
00
00
CTi
CO
r-~
LO
a>
3
4-
10
LO
co
co
CO
CO
CO
^d-
CO
CO
LO
LO
i —
O- 03
CM
CM
*d-
0
1 —
LO
03
CM
>
4->
C
00 ^
0
O
CO
0
LO
O
O
CTi
co
cn
«*
CD
Q CO
*d-
cn
0
0
CTl
CO
r~
LO
CTi
LO
O
O
LO
o
r- h- E
LO
LO
r-.
r-.
LO
«d-
LO
^3-
CM
CO
LO
LO
^3"
i.
03 ~— '
QJ
O
Q-
S-
cn
O
LO
LO
CM
co
cn
>^-
LO
^f
LO
-C
o
LO
CTi
LO
LO
CO
r-»
LO
LO
CTl
O
>*
«tf"
LO
+->
■!->
LO
■*
CO
CM
CO
CM
LO
1 —
O
CM
r^
LO
1
O
l/l - — -
LO
■i- 4-
^3"
r^
CM
O
CO
*3"
CO
CM
LO
1 —
cn
:r cr 03
CM
CM
^3-
co
CM
1 —
CO
CM
-C
,
03
2
O
CD
>J
+->
+->
>
0
c
-O
S_
S_
>1
c
cn
Q.
(J
O
CO
(O
cu
03
a.
03
3
3
3
CU
5
O
7Z.
0
rO
u_
2:
•a:
s:
<~3
•S
<:
00
329
CD
, —
>
Q_
CC
+->
rn
(\)
aj
3
c
Dies
c
C )
c
I—
s.
tu
CD -C
c
4-1
+J
I.
o
c
^.
r—
CM
VO
VO
O
VO
CM
en
r-^
r~-
VO
VO
r^
0
co
oo
r~-
tTi
in
o
CD
O
0
O
<— cn
o
i —
o
00
P>-
vo
co
00
E
4- •— -
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
O
(O -— -
Q- i —
3 ^
■P^TOl
rC O £
"O
CD
LO Q.
+J
Q
03
|— -l-> .— ,
i-*
ID
VO
O
en
o
VO
en
CM
o->
3
n3 \
r-^
ID
co
O
oo
i —
1 —
r~~-
r--
r~.
VO
l/>
E
I/IO Ol
CM
CXl
co
CO
r^
VO
r^
VO
0O
00
00
00
co
cu
E
*
■
*
**
*
3
1/0
— '
1 —
1
1
1
1
n3
o
CO
CM
*d-
LO
o
oo
r~-
in
0
CD
0
*d-
cu
r~
OO
VO
CM
>d-
*d-
oo
oo
■=d-
00
0O
vo
OO
CO
VO
r-^
VO
CM
0
VO
VO
<3-
m
.f—
it-
-t->
er ro
1 —
CM
CM
«d-
CM
r*.
in
en
CM
CM
CM
• —
^3-
c
^3-
Ol
o
CD
Q.
CM
O
o
o
o
CO
in
oo
O
^t"
in
O
00
.c
oo --^
VO
VO
CM
>=*•
r~-
«3-
vo
vo
■^■
O
VO
O
CM
4->
Q CD
r«.
r-»
CO
t~^
VO
LO
VO
in
^d-
VO
p~-
00
VO
O
r- h- E
en
(T3
t_)
O
CM
oo
CM
•d-
in
*t
OO
en
«a-
in
r-»
O
00
+->
in
oo
O0
CO
CM
CM
r-»
vo
00
O
C3-1
OO
(/) '-^
uo
oo
oo
in
en
<3-
ID
<3"
•i- <4-
ia ns
CM
in
VO
CO
VO
oo
co
CM
00
00
1 —
1 —
CM
00
„ ,
1 —
in
ID
VO
in
r-»
r-^
«3-
0
^1-
OO
O0
^~
CM
en
oo
*3-
oo
l*s
00
r~.
00
OO
i— CX>
en
en
CO
00
r-~
VO
r^
VO
O0
00
en
O
VO
E
*
*
*
<4- ^
o
rt3 *— <
a. >—
3 "^
+-> ^ „\N en
re o E
T3
OJ
OO CD-
+J
CD.
fC
l_ +J ,~~
r-~
o
VO
rn
«3-
in
en
VO
*d"
en
VO
VO
l~-
3
rt3 ~-^
VO
o
r-~
r^.
o
vo
vo
^d-
**
00
r^
>3-
e
O0 O Ol
r~-
CO
co
r^
VO
vo
vo
in
00
r—
CM
r~
in
E
m
•*
00
'
'"
o
Ln
m
o
o
o
o
in
O
0
O
CM
1 —
l/l
r-»
oo
*fr
o
Ln
^-
vo
o
00
OO
00
Ln
CD
r~-
oo
**■
oo
vo
CO
CM
00
VO
VO
*=(-
3
4-
cr «3
■=3-
^-
LO
Ln
in
r^.
co
i —
r--
CM
CM
^1-
Ln
(0
ID
CM
:=»
cu
+j
c
oo \
O
o
OO
o
vo
o
o
en
CO
Ol
■=^-
CD
Q CJ>
"^•
en
o
o
en
CO
p>-
m
en
VO
O
0
rn
o
r— 1— E
in
in
p^
r~
in
«*
in
•*
CM
00
rn
m
<3-
s-
re ■—
CD
o
Q.
Z.
o
.c
<J\
o
VO
VO
CM
co
en
■=1-
VO
<3-
vo
, —
1 —
+J
-t~>
VO
en
Ln
VO
CO
i —
vo
m
en
0
*3-
«f
10
o
i/i - — -
ID
■=3-
oo
CM
CO
CM
m
i —
0
CM
r~-
m
< —
Lf>
•r- 4-
dz cd- re
«d"
r~.
CM
o
co
<^f
oo
CM
in
1 —
en
CM
CM
"=3-
CO
CM
00
CM
-C
f0
3
c
o
CO
>>
+->
+J
>
o
c
-O
S-
s-
>>
c:
CT>
Q.
O
o
CD
n3
CD
(O
Q.
(O
3
Z5
3
d)
5
o
z:
Q
■"3
U_
2:
<C
2:
■"3
•~3
«=C
00
330
O
C7)r-
1 —
co
r^
r-^
00
r-»
00
r^
00
r-~.
00
CO
r~~
00
r— CD
E
>+- — -
o
o
O
o
o
O
o
O
o
O
o
o
o
o
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
OvJ
CM
CM
CM
CM
ro ^~-
Q- l—
o
O
CD
o
CD
o
CD
o
O
o
o
O
o
13 ^
LO
LD
«3-
LO
«*
LO
"3"
LD
LD
LO
LO
LO
LO
+->.*: Js™ CD
IB U E
to
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
■■£)
LO
LO
"O
CD
go Q-
+J
Q
n3
|— +j -^
i —
i — i —
CM
CM
CM
oo
CM
0O
CM
CM
, —
CM
CM
CM
CM
3
rO ^
00
CO
CO
CO
00
CO
00
00
co
00
00
00
00
to
E
I/IO Ol
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CD
E
rs
go
— *
rO
>
LO
1 —
CO
00
CD
co
00
OO
CM
CD
CD
<d"
o
O)
UD
CD
r^
LD
OO
LO
r~.
r-^
*3-
«3"
CD
^J-
r~.
O
00
LO
<d-
LO
co
«3"
o
CD
CD
CD
4-
4->
o- <o
■ —
i —
CM
oo
OO
OO
CM
, —
CD
o
CM
s_
CD
Q-
■ — '
.c:
OO "-^
CM
o
O
O
o
co
LO
OO
o
«3"
LO
O
OO
+->
Q CD
lo
LO
CM
«*
r-»-
^-
LO
LO
*3-
o
LO
O
CM
o
r— 1— E
r-*.
r-~.
CO
r^
LO
LO
LO
LO
<d-
LO
r-.
co
LO
cr>
rO
o
Z.
o
CM
ro
CM
^1-
LD
*3"
0O
CD
>3-
LO
r^
o
CO
+->
LO
CO
OO
00
CM
CM
1 —
LO
OO
o
CD
OO
LO --^
LO
OO
oo
LO
CD
*d-
LD
<tf-
•i- >+-
xa ro
CM
Lf)
LO
00
LO
OO
00
CM
oo
oo
1 —
, —
CM
00
^^
n—
OO
OO
CM
oo
CM
CO
CM
CM
CD
oo
oo
oo
r~«
o
r^>
r^.
CM
LO
r— CD
E
4- —'
en
CD
CD
en
CD
CD
00
CO
■3-
CD
CD
CD
00
O
r0 »—»
a. i—
LO
LO
LD
LO
LD
O
^-
LO
<3"
LO
LD
LD
**
3 ^-v.
^-
**
"3"
^-
>*
^-
o
o
o
*d"
«3-
«=f
oo
+-> -^ jf" en
in
LO
LD
LD
LO
LD
LO
LO
<3-
LO
LO
LO
1 —
fO O E
T3
CD
I/) Q.
+J
Q
rO
1— +j —x
CO
1 — ,
r-~
00
r^.
CM
LO
r~~
CD
CO
co
1 —
CD
3
ro -^.
r-.
1 —
r-»
r^
r^
r^
oo
oo
r-~
1-^
r^
r--.
O
E
00 CD CD
LO
•i—
E
oo
LD
r~-
oo
00
CD
00
co
oo
co
CD
CD
«=1-
LO
LO
LO
CD
r>-
LO
oo
LO
r^.
LO
>=d-
«*
CD
0O
0)
r--«
O
oo
LO
<3-
LO
00
<d-
CD
CD
CD
CO
3
4-
1 —
cr ro
i —
i —
CM
LO
0O
OO
CM
*3"
<T3
"3-
LO
>
CD
+J
i —
c
GO --»
o
O
OO
o
LO
o
o
CD
CO
CD
>^-
CD
Q CD
«3-
CD
o
o
CD
CO
r~-
LO
CD
LO
O
o
LD
o
I— r- E
lo
LO
r-*.
r~»
LD
«*
LD
<3-
CM
OO
LO
LO
>3-
s-
ro -— -
CD
O
O-
si
-C
O
CD
O
LO
LO
CM
co
CD
«=f
LO
<3"
LO
+J
-t->
LO
CTi
LO
LO
00
r-^
LO
LO
CD
o
**
«*
LD
o
to - — -
LD
<*
OO
CM
CO
CM
LO
O
CM
r-~
LD
LO
•1- 4-
xcr ro
«3"
r-~
CM
O
co
*3-
oo
CM
LO
r~~
CD
CM
CM
^d-
CO
CM
CO
CM
-C
1
ro
3
o
• r-
QJ
>>
+J
+->
>
o
c
JD
s-
t-
>i
e
CD
Q.
c
o
o
a>
(O
ai
(O
Q-
ro
13
ZJ
3
ai
5
o
z
a
""3
u_
S
<C
s:
"■3
""3
<X
CO
331
1 —
CO
co
CM
CD
CO
r-v
co
CM
o
vT
r^.
co
, —
LO
LT)
OO
CM
CM
co
o
vf
CO
rv.
CM
r— CT1
LO
<3-
v*
OO
co
o
CM
CO
t-v.
r~.
LO
v±
E
4-
O
ro '— •
Q- i —
OO
CO
O
LO
CO
LO
co
CTi
CO
■=3-
r^.
r-v
o
3 ~-v
LO
LO
CO
O
CO
r-v
P ^ „\N Ol
OO
CNJ
CM
CD
co
0")
O
oo
•vt
■vi-
oo
CM
ro c_> E
-a
CD
OO Q-
+J
O
ro
(— +J «— -
t-v.
vj-
CTi
O
LO
OO
CO
CO
LO
oo
CO
00
3
rO ^.
r-v
LO
CO
CO
v3-
CM
CTi
CTl
LO
CTl
CO
E
OO CD CD
o
O
o
CD
CO
r-v.
00
co
o
O
CTi
ID
•I—
E
■»
«
■
•»
*
«
*<
*
3
oo
ro
>
CD
rv
co
co
o->
co
oo
oo
CM
CTl
CTl
v3"
CD
d)
LO
cn
r-v.
LO
OO
LO
r-v
rv.
■vt
v^"
CTi
■vi-
CO
cr.
r-v.
LO
OO
oo
LO
CTi
oo
co
O
• i—
4-
+J
cr ro
CM
i —
r—
1 —
I —
OO
CO
LO
OO
V*
v±
OO
ce
c
oo
<L>
o
Ol
Q_
"■" -
jC
OO "-v.
CM
o
o
CD
CD
co
LO
oo
O
vj-
LO
o
oo
-M
Q cn
CO
CO
CM
■vf
r-v
vi-
CO
CO
vf
o
CO
CD
CM
O
i— h- E
r-v.
r~v
oo
r^~
CO
LO
CO
LO
vf
CO
r~.
oo
CO
CTi
rO
O
o
CNJ
OO
CM
vf
LO
«vt-
OO
CTl
vf
LO
r-»
CD
CO
+->
LT)
OO
OO
co
CM
CNJ
r-v.
CO
oo
CD
CTi
OO
CO '— -
LO
OO
O0
LO
CTl
■vi-
CO
vi-
•r- 4-
ZSZ CD" rC
CNJ
LO
CO
co
CO
OO
co
CM
OO
oo
i —
i —
CNJ
00
, „
i —
ON
CM
i —
r~v
OO
CO
OO
vf
o
1 —
CM
CO
LO
CO
o
co
r-v.
ON
CO
r-v.
l~v
LO
oo
O0
O
LO
i— OO
"vl-
vi-
OO
CM
o
co
cr>
^a-
CO
CO
LO
CO
E
*
*
•»
*
4-
O
ro . — -
a. i—
CO
o
o
CNJ
CM
«3-
oo
o
CM
LO
LO
r-v
^ ^-,
V*
o
o
CNJ
rv-
cn
00
o
CM
oo
OO
vj"
vT
■P^J,™ Ol
CNJ
CM
CM
CTi
r~-
co
o
■vt-
oo
oo
CM
r^
re o E
*
*
■»
•>
»
*
*
«
-o
QJ
00 Q.
+->
Q
rO
h- +J '-v
OO
co
CO
r-v
CM
CM
O0
r-v.
•*
CNJ
LO
LO
co
3
ro -^.
o
cr>
co
LO
CM
CTl
CM
ON
oo
OO
oo
oo
E
00 O CD
o
CTi
o
cn
CO
r-v
rv.
CO
OO
o
O
CTi
CO
E
OO
^— ^
T~
1
1
1
LO
r^~
co
co
CTl
co
co
OO
o
CTi
CTi
vi-
00
CO
LT)
CTi
r-v.
LO
OO
LO
r-v
CM
vl-
•vi-
0~i
CO
(1)
CO
cn
r-v.
LO
OO
OO
LO
OO
co
ce
O
vj"
3
4-
i —
O- ro
CNJ
i —
i —
i —
r—
OO
oo
LO
o
vl-
■vt-
oo
■vt
CO
vT
r-v
>
o>
4->
1 —
C
OO -~»
O
o
oo
o
CO
o
o
ON
oo
CTl
vj"
CD
Q OO
"vf-
cn
O
o
ON
CO
rv-
LO
CTi
CO
O
O
LO
O
i— h- E
CO
LO
i —
r-v
LO
vj-
LO
■vt-
CM
oo
LO
LO
vl-
i-
rO — '
O)
O
O-
z.
.c
O
Ol
o
CO
CO
CM
co
CTl
vf
CO
vd-
CO
+->
+■>
CO
cr>
LO
CO
CO
r-v
CO
LO
ON
o
«*
<=1-
LO
o
to -— -
LO
vj-
OO
CM
CO
CM
LO
O
CNJ
t-v.
LO
LO
-r- 4-
n: cr ro
vT
r-v,
CNJ
o
00
vj-
OO
CM
LO
r-v.
o>
CM
CM
vf
co
CNJ
CO
CM
-C
,
ro
5
o
•i—
O)
=N
4->
+->
>
o
c
-D.
S-
S-
>1
c
cn
Q.
o
o
CD
ro
CD
ro
Q.
(O
3
3
3
d)
o
z
o
■"D
U_
s:
<:
s:
■"D
•~3
<C
CO
332
1600 -i
1500 -
1400 -
1300 -
1200 -
1100
C 1000
900 -
CO
Q
H
I" 800
c
o
. 700 -
o
| 600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
Level of Salt Pickup
Development (tons/ocre/yeor)
High without F8G Flows 0
High with F8G Flows 0
- Intermediate with 60% NGPRP F 8 G Flows 0
Low wjtn ioo% NGPRP F8G Flows 0
Historical _
NOTE: 50,h Percentile Values
• f \
— *\ \ / PlK.
\ »//'*'
\ \
• s- <N X^ / \ -( ,' *
\ I ' \
\--. ■■-*•■•■ M r '
\J /
/
/y
V
Oct Nov Dec
Jan
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 14. Comparison of historical and simulated TDS concentra-
tions in the Tongue River near Miles City at 50th percentile values.
333
1600 -i
1500 -
1400 -
1300 -
1200 -
1100 -
~ 1000 -
\
o>
E
Z 9°°-
Q
H
I* 800 -
c
o
« 700
o>
o
I 600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
Level of
Development
Salt Pickup
(tons/acre/year)
- High without F 8 G Flows 0
- High with F 8 G Flows 0
• Intermediate with 60% NGPRP F8G Flows 0
- Low with 100% NGPRP F8G Flows 0
- Historical —
90th Percentile Values
NOTE:
Oct Nov Dec
Jan
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
I
Figure 15. Comparison of historical and simulated TDS concentra-
tions in the Tongue River near Miles City at 90th percentile values.
334
High Level of Development with Fish and Game Flows. The higher flows
at this level of development would alleviate somewhat the impacts projected
under the high level of development without the fish and game flows, but TDS
concentrations would still increase substantially over present values. Monthly
TDS values would average over 1000 mg/1 (1500 mg/1 with salt pickup of 1 ton
per acre per year) from July through December at 50th percentile flows, and
about 10 percent less than 90th percentile values. Overall, average annual
concentrations would increase 60 percent (128 percent with salt pickup) at 50th
percentile flows, and 41 percent (88 percent with salt pickup) at 90th percen-
tile flows. July and August concentrations would be somewhat less than under
the intermediate level of development, but 11 out of 12 months would show TDS
values exceeding 722 mg/1 (866 mg/1 with salt pickup) during 50 percent of
the years.
Check on Simulated TDS Concentrations. Because of the proposed enlarge-
ment of the Tongue River Reservoir, the equations listed in table 143, which
were the basis for simulating future TDS values, may not be valid in the
future. Therefore, regression equations developed from five years (1966-1970)
of records on the Tongue River at the state border near Decker and equations
(8), (9), and (10), which describe TDS changes in the reservoir, were used to
check results. The applicable equations are given in table 148.
TABLE 148. Regression equation between TDS concentrations and monthly discharge
(Q) in the Tongue River at the state border near Decker, 1966-1970.
Months
Best Fit Equation
2
r
Significance
Mar-Apr
log TDS = 2.85147 -
.00455 Q
.45
a
May-July
log TDS = 3.0107 -
.32961 log Q
.84
b
Aug-Feb
log TDS = 3.10784 -
.35604 log Q
.76
b
NOTE: TDS concentrations represent average monthly figures in mg/1;
Q represents monthly discharge in thousands of acre-feet.
Significant at 5 percent level.
Significant at 1 percent level.
In essence, CO-j from equation (10) is used to obtain LTDSj of equation (2). TDS
values obtained from using the state border records, method B, theoretically
should be less than values obtained using records at Miles City, method A, be-
cause method A reflects the natural increase in TDS between the dam and Miles
City. In general, this expectation was realized. Figures 16-21 compare
simulated TDS values from both methods for the various levels of development.
Comparisons lead to the following comments:
1) There was good agreement between the methods at the 90th percentile
flows.
335
1400 -.
1300 -
1200 -
1100 -
1000 -
~ 900
\
o>
E
Miles City
State Line
Historical
Percentile
Values
50,h
50,h
0 Salt Pickup
0 Salt Pickup
N0TE: Low Level of Development
100% NGPRP F a G Flows
(S)
Q
800 -
-^ 700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
n— —
-a o-
200
100 -
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 16. Comparison of TDS concentrations in the Tongue River
at Miles City computed from records at Miles City and the state bor-
der, assuming complete mixing in the reservoir, and using the low
level of development at 50th percentile values.
336
2800 -i
2600 -
2400 -
2200 -
2000 -
-*
1800
V
o>
E
1600
(j>
Q
1-
>»
1400
JC
c
o
2
1200
0>
o>
o
<u
<
1000
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
a Miles City
■h State Line
-• Historical
Percentile
Values
90th
90th
ton/acre/year Salt Pickup
ton/acre/year Salt Pickup
NOTE:
Low Level of Development
100% NGPRP F & G Flows
Oct
Nov Dec
Jan
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 17. Comparison of TDS concentrations in the Tongue River
at Miles City computed from records at Miles City and the state bor-
der, assuming complete mixing in the reservoir, and using the low
level of development at 90th percentile values.
337
1400 -i
1300 -
1200 -
1100 -
1000 -
— »
900
v>
o>
E
800
CO
Q
t-
-? 700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
Percentile
Values
-m
50th
50th
NOTE^
Miles City
State Line
• Historical
Intermediate Level of Development
60% NGPRP F 8 G Flows
0 Salt Pickup
0 Salt Pickup
Oct Nov Dec
Jan
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 18. Comparison of TDS concentrations in the Tongue River
at Miles City computed from records at Miles City and the state bor-
der, assuming complete mixing in the reservoir, and using the inter-
mediate level of development at 50th percentile values.
330
2800 -i
2600 -
2400 -
2200 -
2000 -
—
1800
\
o>
E
1600
</)
Q
H
_>»
1400
c
o
?
1200
£ 1000 -
800 -
600
400
200 -
Miles City
State Line
Historical
Percentile
Values
90th
90th
I ton/acre/year Salt Pickup
I ton/acre/year Salt Pickup
NOTE;
Intermediate Level of Development
60% NGPRP F 8 G Fows
Oct Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 19. Comparison of TDS concentrations in the Tongue River
at Miles City computed from records at Miles City and the state bor-
der, assuming complete mixing in the reservoir, and using the inter-
mediate level of development at 90th percentile values.
339
1400 -i
1300 -
1200 -
M Miles City
•h State Line
-• Historical
NOTE;
Percentile
Values
50* h
50,h
High Level of Development
with F 8 G Flows
0 Salt Pickup
0 Salt Pickup
I 100 -
1000 -
— 900
E
800 -
-? 700 -
600 -
500 -
400
300 -
200 -
100 -
May June July
1 1 0 I
Aug Sept
Oct Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb Mar Apr
Figure 20. Comparison of TDS concentrations in the Tongue River
at Miles City computed from records at Miles City and the state bor-
der, assuming complete mixing in the reservoir, and using the high
level of development at 50th percentile values.
340
2800 -i
2600 -
2400 -
2200
2000 -
cr 1800 -
\
o>
E
Percentile
Values
90th
90th
NOTE
1600 -
■? 1400 -
1200 -
■ Miles City
-~ H State Line
• Historical
High Level of Development
with F a G Flows
I ton/acre/year Salt Pickup
I ton/acre/year Salt Pickup
«,
1000 -
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
0 -r
Oct Nov Dec
Jan
Feb Mar Apr May
~, 1 1
June July Aug
Sept
Figure 21. Comparison of TDS concentrations in the Tongue River at
Miles City computed from records at Miles City and the state border,
assuming complete mixing in the reservoir, and using the high level of
development at 90th percentile values.
341
2) Fiftieth percentile values were consistently lower from method B.
Except during the summer, method B produced TDS concentrations
lower than historical values; this is not impossible considering
the lessening effect of the reservoir, but it is probably unreal-
istic considering the deterioration in quality between the dam
and Miles City.
3) The general conclusions are the same under either method. Further
development of the Tongue River would cause significant increases
in TDS concentrations at Miles City, especially during the summer
and fall .
Other Parameters
Major reductions in flow, accompanied by substantial increases in TDS,
would produce significant deterioration of overall water quality. Dissolved
constituents generally increase linearly with TDS concentrations. Sodium is
naturally low and should not become a problem; the SAR would increase from
1.38 when TDS is 450 to 2.6 when TDS is 1200 (SAR = .573 + .00169 TDS; r =
.708). Sulfate, on the other hand, is fairly high now--182 mg/1 at a TDS of
450 (SO4 = -41.4 + .496 TDS; r = .985). It would reach 256 mg/1 for TDS con-
centrations of 600 mg/1 and 554 mg/1 for TDS concentrations of 1200 mg/1.
Hardness also would increase substantially from its already high levels of
250-400 mg/1. Nutrients may increase because of the irrigation of new land
and the concomitant increase in irrigation return flow. Water temperatures
would be higher because of reduced streamflows, but the magnitude of these
increases is difficult to predict. The waste assimilation capacity would be
reduced, perhaps accompanied by a reduction in dissolved oxygen. TSS concen-
tration tends to decrease as discharge is reduced. Moreover, the larger
Tongue River Reservoir should remove more sediment from the water than the
existing structure. However, these effects may be offset at least partially
by the increased production of sediment from expanded mining and agricultural
operations.
Summary
All levels of development analyzed for the Tongue River subbasin would
produce significant reductions in water quality at Miles City, primarily be-
cause of the combination of substantially reduced streamflows and increased
salt loads from irrigation return flows. TDS, sulfate, and hardness would
increase above the already high levels. Sodium would probably increase but
not enough to cause a problem. The aquatic environment would be severely
stressed by the low late summer flows which would be higher in dissolved
minerals and nutrients, possibly lower in dissolved oxygen, and subject to
higher temperatures and increased diurnal variation in both temperature and
dissolved oxygen.
342
POWDER RIVER SUBBASIN
Total Dissolved Solids
The Powder River is characterized by large variations in flow and water
quality. Historically, discharge at Locate, near the mouth, has varied from
0 to 31,000 cfs., with flows less than 30 cfs. and greater than 5000 cfs.
common. The Powder River carries an extremely high sediment load and annually
contributes several million tons of sediment to the Yellowstone River (an
average of 6 million tons per year for 1951-1953 and 1974). In addition, the
water carries a high and variable load of TDS concentrations. Because of the
wide variation in discharge and quality, and the paucity of water quality
records (1951-1963 is available on the Powder River near Locate), the regres-
sion equations between TDS and discharge in table 149 generally are not as
reliable as similar equations for the other subbasins. The listed equations,
however, were used to obtain estimates of historical TDS values.
The projected construction of a large dam on the Powder River at Moorhead
required that equations (8), (9), and (10), which describe water quality changes
in a reservoir, be employed. Analysis of concurrent records for the February
1951 to September 1953 period (the only period with records at Moorhead) re-
vealed no statistically significant difference between average monthly TDS
values of the Powder River near Locate and the Powder River at Moorhead. Con-
sequently, equations between TDS and Q for the Powder River near Locate (table
149) were used to calculate TDS of reservoir inflow, CI] of equation (9).
Because of the excessive sediment carried by the Powder River, the proposed
dam at Moorhead was assumed to provide 875,000 af of inactive storage capacity
in which to store incoming sediment. Theoretically, at the end of the economic
life of the reservoir, this space would be filled with sediment, leaving only
275,000 af of a total storage capacity of 1,150,000 af for use (USBR 1969).
Because water quality calculations are based on complete mixing of incoming
flow with reservoir contents, VR0, the storage in the reservoir, could become
an important parameter of equation (8). Therefore, water quality was simulated
separately using both the initial 1,150,000 af and the final 275,000 af storage
capacities. Results, illustrated in figures 22 and 23, indicate that TDS is
relatively insensitive to the storage capacity. Consequently, the discussion
that follows considers only the case of 1,150,000 af active storage, which would
be more indicative of the early life of the structure.
Only two levels of development, labeled low and high, were considered for
the Powder Subbasin. Results are presented in tables 150 and 151 and in figures
24 and 25, and are briefly summarized below.
Low Level of Development. A large dam at Moorhead would lessen the natural
variation in TDS immediately below the dam, as indicated in figure 22, and pro-
duce a nearly constant concentration of approximately 1100 mg/1. Subsequent
use of reservoir releases for irrigation, however, would significantly increase
TDS concentrations at the mouth of the Powder River. Annual concentrations
would increase 18 percent (25 percent with salt pickup of 1 ton per acre per
year) and 97 percent (129 percent with salt pickup) at the 50th percentile
and 90th percentile flows, respectively, from 1137 mg/1 to 1339 mg/1 (1423 mg/1
343
TABLE 149. Regression equations between TDS and monthly discharge (Q) in the
Powder River near Locate, 1951-1963.
Month
Best Fit Equation
2
r
Significance
Jan
TDS = 2009.9 - .04002 Q
.154
a
Feb
TDS = 3965.75 - 663.84961
log Q
.745
b
Mar
log TDS = 3.14148 - .0000027288
Q
.863
b
Apr
TDS = 1603.99 - .00769
Q
.764
b
May
TDS = 2952.2 - 408.35
log Q
.179
a
June
log TDS = 3.50657 - .10253
log Q
.256
a
July
TDS = 4378.26 - 707.0542
log Q
.579
b
Aug
TDS = 2171.01 - 136.38783
log Q
.067
a
Sept
log TDS - 3.35371 - 0.06055
log Q
.170
a
Oct
TDS = 3479.57 - 521.59961
log Q
.517
b
Nov
log TDS = 3.37988 - .00002
Q
.856
b
Dec
log TDS = 3.40523 - .00002
Q
.759
b
All months
TDS = 3348.9 - 469.92334
.457
b
NOTE: TDS represents average monthly figures in mg/1 ; Q represents monthly
discharge in acre-feet.
Not significant at 4 percent level.
Significant at 1 percent level.
with salt pickup) and from 1390 mg/1 to 2739 mg/1 (3188 mg/1 with salt pickup).
Monthly increases would be more dramatic. July through January values would
increase by factors ranging from 1.69 (2.07 with salt pickup) to 2.46 (3.05 with
salt pickup) at 50th percentile flows, or from an average 7-month concentration
of 1552 mg/1 to 3221 mg/1 (3956 mg/1 with salt pickup). February through June
increases would be comparatively modest at 50th percentile flows, but at 90th
percentile flows, all months would show high TDS waters; over ten months of the
year (June-March) TDS concentrations would exceed 3400 mg/1 (4100 mg/1 with salt
pickup). During many months (even in average years), the Powder River at its
mouth would consist almost entirely of irrigation return flow and would have
TDS concentrations exceeding 3000 mg/1. Obviously such water would not be
suitable for most beneficial uses.
344
1700 -.
1600 -
1500 -
1400 -
1300
1200
1 100 -
s iooo
en
K 900
1 800
o 700
600
500 -
400
300
200
100
" n a
fc-r — • •—
H a a —
Level of
Development
Mixing Storage
(of)
H H High
H n High
• • Low
• * Low
Historical
1,150,000
275,000
1,150,000
275,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 22. Effects of reservoir storage on TDS concentrations in
the Powder River near Moorhead.
345
5100 -i
4800 -
4500 -
4200 -
3900 -
3600 -
» n »•
a n n-
••• / * ••.
; / v •
// \\
■•' / \ '•
: / ^ \
i i v ••
.•/ \ •
•/ » "-.
<£i \B H' fl"
/ \
— H —
n
3300 -
f 3000
en
H 2700
§ 2400 -
2
v
o 2100
9)
>
<
1800 -
1500 -
1200 -
:---•—-:<*..
i •
/•
900 -
600 -
300 -
Level of
Development
Percentil
Values
a--
a-
■■■a
High
High
Low
Low
90th
90,h
50th
50th
Mixing Storage
(af)
1,150,000
275,000
1,150,000
275,000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 23. Effects of active storage level on average monthly TDS
concentrations in the Powder River near Locate.
3*6
i —
lo
LO
LO
LO
LO
00
LO
OO
^i-
LO
LO
LO
00
<&
*3"
<d-
«*
*3-
o
p-»
*3-
r-^
^J-
«^"
«d-
00
lt r—
en
E
C\J
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
r^
"~
CM
CM
OsJ
•""
M-
*d-
*
*3-
*3"
«d-
«3"
CM
«3-
*3-
*
•d-
CO
o
(O
^~-
Q.
3
+-> -^ „N"
CT
(O o
E
-a
CD
1/1 CL
+->
Q
(13
1— 4->
"~^
CM
cn
«3-
cn
,
,
,
cn
3
(O
r-.
LO
O
CO
CO
1/1
e
OO O
cn
IT)
LO
LO
LO
LO
*3-
o
r^
^3-
LO
LO
LO
r^
CD
E
3
I/O
^^
CO
OO
OO
OO
OO
CO
CM
>""
CO
OO
CO
OO
CM
T3
>•
o
O
o
O
o
o
LO
LO
o
o
o
o
CD
o
LO
o
LO
o
LO
LO
o
o
o
o
CO
O
CM
o
r~
LO
r-.
OO
O
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
.,—
i+-
•>
*>
-M
cr
ro
CM
i —
■ —
CM
<3"
CO
^a-
■=3-
CM
r--
C
oo
o>
o
0)
O-
cn
1 —
LO
CO
CO
LO
cn
p-~
<d-
o
-c
OO
«5f
CTl
OO
o
OO
*3-
<d-
CO
oo
r^
^J-
cn
+->
Q
cn
O
o
i —
CTl
LO
CM
«3-
i —
CM
cn
r-~
LO
CO
o
i— h-
E
en
(13
O
CM
CM
CM
o
oo
00
O
r^
LO
cn
oo
LO
LO
cn
LO
4->
LO
00
LO
LO
LO
oo
^3-
LO
«*
CO
LO
CO
oo
I/)
LO
LO
1
CTl
LO
00
LO
o
cn
00
co
LO
oo
■l—
M-
"
:n cr
(13
OO
OO
OO
r~
o
CM
LO
CM
o
CM
oo
cn
^^
co
CM
CM
LO
00
LO
o
LO
LO
r-~
r^
CO
o
O
O
LO
OO
r-~
o
LO
r-~
CM
CM
CM
CO
E
O
O
CD
00
«d-
<—
CM
CM
CM
r~-
O
o
<3"
t-
«=t
«*
«s-
OO
OO
*d-
^3-
.—
o
(T3
,-^
CL
3
+-> ^ J?
' cn
(O o
E
T3
CD
OO Q-
+->
Q
03
H- +->
r-»
r^
r~.
o
CO
CM
cn
"3-
CM
0\J
cn
Z3
13
~^
LO
LO
lo
CM
CM
LO
cn
00
o
«=i-
en
cn
CO
E
00 G
cn
E
CM
CM
CM
I —
CO
' —
1 —
1 —
CM
O
CM
CM
oo
oo
co
CO
OO
OO
oo
CO
OO
r"
O
O
o
o
CM
CM
o
<=1-
CO
O
o
o
,
c/1
O
LO
o
LO
1 —
CM
o
00
o
O
o
o
CM
CD
> s.
O
CM
o
r~
OO
en
LO
*3-
OO
LO
LO
LO
i —
3
M-
cr
<o
CM
, —
, —
OO
■5*
o
1 —
i —
^f
^1-
CM
co
13
CO
CO
LO
cn
CM
>
(11
CM
-l_>
co
LO
cn
<=f
cn
en
o
o
LO
00
r-^
OO
r~
C
OO
■ —
LO
p-.
CM
LO
1 —
00
>=i-
cn
co
OO
CO
LO
oo
CD
Q
cn
■*
<=J-
CTi
r-.
CM
en
oo
cn
cn
CsJ
LO
CO
' —
<_)
r— h-
E
*
*
*
■
S-
(13
<D
<_)
O-
S-
o
r"
CM
,
Ol
CO
o
CO
LO
r^
o
,—
r—
^J-
i —
4->
4->
CTl
LO
LO
CTl
LO
«*
LO
*d-
LO
o
CM
LO
LO
O
l/l
- — ~
OO
o
CO
1 —
LO
CM
r~
CO
LO
CM
1
o
in
:n c
4-
03
r-^
O
r*.
LO
,
CO
*d-
oo
o
r~-
cn
*d-
LO
LO
00
LO
o
CM
CO
OO
-E
ro
o
CD
>i
-t->
3
4->
>
o
c
-O
i.
i-
>>
c
i —
cn
o.
c
(J
o
Q)
f0
CD
(O
Q.
(O
3
3
3
CD
5
O
z
Q
•~z>
l_l_
s:
<
s:
n
>"3
«=£
1/0
317
1 —
en
CD
CD
CD
in
r-^
<^-
r-~
CD
o
CD
CD
CM
O
CD
in
r-~
CO
CD
oo
j— CD
E
<4- '
in
Ln
in
*d-
in
*d-
«3-
CO
^t
in
ld
in
Ln
*d-
*d-
*3-
*
*3-
<3-
^
<d-
•*d"
*d-
<3"
^a-
^3-
O
ro *-»
Q. i—
3 ~-^
+-> -i^ Jf* CD
(O O E
-a
CD
CO Q-
•<->
Q
<ts
H- +j _
i —
i — i —
cr>
CNJ
CM
in
CM
*3-
o
CD
«d"
^i-
■*
co
, —
^
ro \
CTv
CD
O
CO
O
<3-
CO
CO
O
CD
CD
CD
co
CO
E
I/IO O)
CO
CO
r-^
CD
r^
CD
in
CD
CD
CO
CD
CD
r-^
CD
•i—
E
3
co
*— *
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
"=i-
CO
oo
CO
CO
oo
rO
>
o
o
o
O
O
o
o
o
o
O
O
O
o
CD
o
co
o
OO
in
CO
o
>=J-
CO
CO
CO
CD
r-~
o
CO
in
r^
Ln
o
CM
r^
r~»
r--
«^-
it-
+->
er ro
oo
1 —
i —
i —
1 —
i —
«3-
in
CD
CO
CO
r^
C
CO
Ol
o
tD
O-
i —
CD
r^
CD
r—
co
co
in
CD
r^
i —
, —
■=a-
O
JC
00 ^s.
*3"
CD
CO
o
oo
*3-
>=3-
CO
CO
r-~
>*
CD
+->
Q CD
o
o
cd
CO
CM
*a-
C\J
CTl
r-~
in
oo
CD
•—I— E
CD
re ^--
o
CM
CM
CM
o
OO
CO
O
r^
in
CD
co
m
CD
CD
i —
in
, —
+->
in
CO
m
CO
CO
CO
>3-
CO
"=3-
CO
CO
oo
CO
CO -—•
in
CO
r-~
CD
in
CO
CD
O
CD
CO
co
in
oo
•i- 4-
io <o
CO
oo
i —
CO
r-«
O
CO
CD
CM
oo
CM
CM
CD
^_^
i —
O
1 —
O
<=1-
CO
■=a-
r^
CM
in
CD
in
CM
CM
CM
co
CD
1 —
r^
m
CO
CD
co
^3"
CO
i— CD
E
4-
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
oo
«3"
CM
CM
oo
CO
CO
*3-
*d-
^t"
'd-
<3-
CM
,_
,
,
"*
^3-
*3-
,
O
ro ^—-
Q- i—
3
+J -^ J,™ CD
ro O E
"O
CD
CO Q-
+J
Q
fO
(— +J --^
i —
■ — i —
<d-
r^
CO
o
CM
OO
CM
"*
o
CO
CD
co
in
3
rC -^
o
CD
r-^
CO
ID
in
CO
o
oo
CD
CD
r~~.
E
CO O CD
Ln
^f
*a-
*3-
«!t
CD
OO
"*
CM
"*
^a-
<^"
ID
E
CO
CO
CO
co
co
CO
1
1
1
r~
oo
oo
oo
1
O
O
o
o
o
*d-
co
r-^
in
CD
o
o
■id-
to
o
co
o
CO
in
in
CM
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
CD
CD
o
CO
in
r^
O
o
in
r^
r^
r^
1 —
oo
3
4-
i —
cr ro
CO
r—
i —
, —
CO
CM
oo
CD
CD
CO
CO
o
rO
CM
oo
CD
ld
>
■ —
CD
4->
1—
co
Ln
CD
<3-
CD
CD
O
o
CD
CO
r^
oo
r-~
c
oo \
CO
i —
CM
in
f-
CO
«*
CD
CO
CO
oo
CO
oo
CD
CD. CD
"=d-
<3-
CD
r^
CM
CD
CO
CD
CD
CvJ
ID
CO
o
>— h- E
•»
"
"
"
■*
S-
<T3 «-— »
CD
U
D.
S_
_c
o
CM
i —
CD
oo
o
oo
CO
r~-
O
r—
i —
^t-
r—
+->
+->
CD
in
CD
CD
ID
■3-
CO
•vj"
CO
CD
C\J
CD
CO
o
CO - — •■
oo
o
oo
in
CM
r-»
CO
CD
CM
o
ld
•i- 4-
n: cr ro
r~.
O
r^
CD
i —
CO
«*■
CO
o
r~»
CD
^d-
in
in
CO
CD
o
CM
CO
CO
-C
(
rd
3
o
• p—
CD
>>
4->
+J
>
o
c
-O
s_
s_
>>
c
CD
Q.
O
o
CD
fO
CD
fO
O-
<o
3
3
3
CD
O
^
o
■"3
u_
s:
<c
s:
■"D
■"D
<c
C/0
*
348
5100 -i
4800 -
4500 -
4200 -
3900 -
3600 -
3300 -
| 3000 -
H 2700 -
§ 2400 -
| 2100 -
>
<
1800 -
1500
1200 -
900 -
600 -
300 -
Level of
Development
Salt Pickup
(tons/acre/year)
a -n
n a
High
High
Low
Low
Historical
NOTE: 50th Percentile Values 1,150,000 af Storage
0 ■+
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 24. Average monthly TDS concentrations in the Powder River
near Locate at 50th percentile values with 1,150,000 af storage.
349
5100-j
4800 -
4500 -
4200 -
3900 -
3600 -
3300 -
I1 3000 -
V)
K 2700 -
§ 2400 -
| 2100 -
>
<
1800 -
1500 -
1200 -
900 -
600 -
300 -
A
n n n a h~-_
/
/
/
\
-*
•-""
\
\
\
• /
••/
t
\
J n"
: I
\ \
\ \
\ r"
1 i
1 !
\ \
• \
• \
• \
• t
1 /
/ :
/ -;
1 :
/ -:
•• \
■ t
1:
-. •
• \
•. \
/:
//
1;
Oct Nov
Level of Salt Pickup
Development (tons/acre/year)
n -a High I
n a High 0
• -• Low I
• • Low 0
1 Historical
NOTE: 90th Percentile Values 1,150,000 af Storage
Dec ' Jan ' Feb ' Mar ' Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 25. Average monthly TDS concentrations in the Powder River
at Locate at 90th percentile values with 1,150,000 af storage.
350
High Level of Development. Annual TDS concentrations would increase 47
percent (64 percent with salt pickup of 1 ton per acre per year) and 172 per-
cent (226 percent with salt pickup) at 50th percentile and 90th percentile
flows, respectively. Concentrations would be about doubled—to 3600 mg/1
(4500 mg/1 with salt pickup) or more--for all months under 90th percentile
flows. At 50th percentile flows, TDS concentrations would average about 3500
mg/1 (4300 mg/1 with salt pickup) from July through February, or approximately
2.3 (2.8) times natural levels; factor increases would be 1.97 (2.27 with salt
pickup) for March, 0.98 (1.02 with salt pickup) for April, 1.48 (1.51 with salt
pickup) for May, and 1.22 (1.28 with salt pickup) for June. Flows at the mouth
of the Powder River would consist essentially of irrigation return flows which
would be unsuitable for most beneficial uses. Depending upon the location of
new irrigated land, soil properties, and the type of irrigation system used, the
water may become unsuitable for irrigation before it reaches the mouth of the
river. In fact, water released from the dam would be classified as high salinity
water and could not be used on soils with restricted drainage; according to
Richards (1954), "... even with adequate drainage, special management for
salinity control may be required and plants with good salt tolerance should be
selected." Obviously, before any land in the Powder River Valley is brought
under irrigation, a thorough investigation should be undertaken to determine the
compatibility of crop, soil, and water.
Other Parameters
Powder River water is characterized by high TSS as well as high TDS concen-
trations. Dissolved constituents consist primarily of sodium and sulfate ions,
with lesser, but significant, concentrations of calcium, bicarbonate, and
chloride. SAR values sometimes exceed 5 or 6, but generally range from 3-4.
Construction of a large reservoir would tend to stabilize the concentrations of
all dissolved minerals and the value of SAR (assuming no significant dissolution
or precipitation of minerals within the reservoir). Moreover, incoming sediment
would be trapped behind the dam. Based on historical records, and assuming com-
plete mixing within the reservoir, releases from the dam should have approximat-
ely the concentrations listed in table 152.
TABLE 152. Concentrations of dissolved minerals and SAR value that would be
released from a reservoir constructed on the Powder River, based upon historical
records.
Concentrations
TDS 1125 mg/1
Na 159 mg/1
S04 572 mg/1
HCO3 209 mg/1
Hardness 486 mg/1
SAR 3.13
Such water would be undesirable for most beneficial uses. It would be suitable
for irrigation only for salt resistant crops on well-drained soils. The high
351
levels of TDS, SOa, and hardness preclude its use for domestic purposes unless
no better source is available.
The significant increases in TDS that would result from using reservoir
releases for irrigation would be accompanied by corresponding increases in the
dissolved constituents. The mix of ions may be altered somewhat, depending
upon chemical properties of the soils irrigated. The net result, in any case,
would be further contamination. By the time it enters the Yellowstone, Powder
River water would contain excessive concentrations of several minerals, and
would be unuseable for almost all beneficial purposes.
Containment of flood waters, with their enormous sediment loads, behind
the dam would reduce the sediment concentration in water released from the reser-
voir. The Powder River channel is highly erodible, and it is likely that con-
siderable scouring would occur below the dam. For a given discharge, the river
may eventually carry as much sediment after construction of the dam as it did
before. Because the dam would store floodwaters and release a more uniform flow
downstream, however, the total annual sediment load discharged into the Yellow-
stone River should be reduced by construction of the dam.
In an average year, under both levels of development, discharges would be
reduced 10 percent to 85 percent during the July-to-September period. The result
could be an increase in water temperature, a decrease in dissolved oxygen, and
an increase in the diurnal variation of both. At 90th percentile flows, on the
other hand, discharges would be higher than under natural conditions. Therefore,
water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels may increase. The key factor
would be the effect of the large reservoir on water quality below the dam. The
quality of releases would depend on many factors, including the nature of chemi-
cal and physical changes that may occur during storage, biological activity in
the reservoir, and the depth at which water is withdrawn—factors that are dif-
ficult to quantify before construction and operation of the prototype.
Summary
Powder River water naturally contains relatively high concentrations of
both TDS and TSS. Construction of a large dam at Moorhead would reduce the
sediment load in the river below the dam and tend to stabilize the concentration
of TDS at approximately 1100 mg/1 , which would classify the water as having a
high salinity hazard. Subsequent use of such water for irrigation would in-
crease TDS concentrations by factors of 2 to 3 before the water would reach
the Yellowstone River.
The low flows (which would often consist essentially of irrigation return
flows) and high TDS levels would be accompanied by higher SAR values and in-
creased hardness, plus higher concentrations of all dissolved minerals. Many
of these parameters, such as sodium, sulfate, and hardness, are already
excessive (the sulfate standard is 250 mg/1, and water is hard at 100 mg/1;
typical concentrations in the Powder River are 400-700 mg/1 sulfates and 300-
600 mg/1 hardness). Moreover, dissolved oxygen levels may be depressed and
water temperatures elevated under either level of development, thereby greatly
352
stressing the aquatic environment. Obviously, any proposed developments on the
Powder River should be carefully and thoroughly scrutinized to determine their
economic feasibility and environmental desirability.
LOWER YELLOWSTONE SUBBASIN
Total Dissolved Solids
Nineteen years of records (1951-1969) on the Yellowstone River near Sidney
were used to develop the regression equations between TDS and discharge given
in table 153. Three levels of development were analyzed, each for an assumed
salt pickup of 0 and 1 ton per acre per year. Results are presented in tables
154, 155, and 156, and are illustrated graphically in figures 26 and 27. Each
level of development is discussed below.
Low Level of Development. Realization of the low level of development would
cause a moderate increase in TDS concentrations in the Yellowstone River at
Sidney. Average annual increases in TDS would be from 422 to 434 mg/1 (445 mg/1
with salt pickup of 1 ton per acre per year) at 50th percentile flows and from
486 to 515 mg/1 (524 mg/1 with salt pickup) at 90th percentile flows. Individ-
ual monthly increases generally would be less than 15 percent. Notable exceptions
would be July and August at 90th percentile flows, when increases would be 20
percent (23 percent with salt pickup) and 31 percent (38 percent with salt pickup)
respectively. The August concentration would increase from 542 to 709 mg/1 (748
mg/1 with salt pickup).
Intermediate Level of Development. Average annual increases in TDS would
range from 9.5 percent at 50th percentile flows with 0 salt pickup to 15.2 per-
cent at 90th percentile flows with 1 ton per acre per year salt pickup. At
50th percentile values, only March, August, and September would show major in-
creases in salinity: 24 percent (26 percent with salt pickup of 1 ton per acre
per year), 28 percent (47 percent with salt pickup), and 18 percent (21 percent
with salt pickup). Increases would be more severe at 90th percentile flows.
Percentage increases from July through October would be 37 (45 with salt pickup),
68 (83 with salt pickup), 17 (27 with salt pickup), and 10 (13 with salt pickup).
Actual concentrations would average 691 mg/1 (701 mg/1 with salt pickup) from
August through October at 90th percentile flow levels.
High Level of Development. If the development assumed by this projection
were to occur, the lower Yellowstone Subbasin would show a major increase in
TDS concentrations, especially during July, August, and September. Annual con-
centrations would increase from 422 to 459 mg/1 (477 mg/1 with salt pickup of
1 ton per acre per year) at 50th percentile flows and from 486 to 541 mg/1 (586
mg/1 with salt pickup) at 90th percentile flows. July, August, and September
concentrations, however, would increase by 24 percent (36 percent with salt
pickup), 41 percent (52 percent with salt pickup), and 24 percent (29 percent
with salt pickup) at 50th percentile flows; and by 38 percent (60 percent with
salt pickup), 108 percent (168 percent with salt pickup), and 30 percent (55
percent with salt pickup) at 90th percentile flows. August through October
concentrations would average 637 mg/1 (670 mg/1 with salt pickup) at 50th
percentile flows and 881 mg/1 (1052 mg/1 with salt pickup) at 90th percentile
353
flows. Thus, even in average flow years, river water would have a high salinity
hazard (Richards 1954) after July and during April.
TABLE 153. Regression equations between TDS and monthly discharge in the
Yellowstone River near Sidney, 1951-1969.
Month
Best Fi
t Equation
2
r
Significance
Jan
log TDS - 4.45663
- .2983
log Q
.655
a
Feb
TDS = 2469.44
- 339.72412
log Q
.580
a
Mar
TDS = 2785.62
- 392.1665
log Q
.571
a
Apr
log TDS = 2.864506
- .0000001684
Q
.634
a
May
TDS = 561.71
- 0.00017959
Q
.494
a
June
TDS = 198.98
+ 0.00003539
Q
.247
b
July
TDS - 917.41
- 101.69664
log Q
.250
b
Aug
TDS = 2303.31
- 327.66333
log Q
.602
a
Sept
log TDS = 2.85842
- .0000002973
Q
.543
a
Oct
TDS = 3745.50
- 561.71338
log Q
.722
a
Nov
TDS - 3852.08
- 579.99414
log Q
.629
a
Dec
TDS = 863.67
- .00061612
Q
.446
a
All months
TDS = 2827.38
- 403.47119
log Q
.685
a
NOTE: TDS represents average monthly concentrations in mg/1 ; Q represents
monthly discharge in acre-feet.
Significant at 1 percent level.
Significant at 5 percent level.
Other Parameters
Significant reductions in flow and major increases in TDS would result in
concomitant degradation of water quality as measured by various parameters.
Unfortunately, techniques are not currently available to determine the magnitude
of changes in most parameters. Most dissolved constituents vary fairly linearly
with TDS concentrations. The plot for sulfate (SO4) is shown on figure 28. A
20 percent increase in TDS, from 500 mg/1 to 600 mg/1, would increase SO4 from
354
^^
o
r«.
CM
O
ro
1 —
r-^
1 —
«a-
CM
00
"&
<3"
r- oo
CT)
to
ro
to
<3-
*3-
CM
o
LO
«3"
o
CM
E
to
LO
l»s
r-.
to
tO
to
LO
(XI
<3-
r^.
r^-
LO
<4- - — -
O
ro »—.
Q. l—
3 -^
-l-> -*: Jf CT>
rO O E
"O
<u
1/1 Q.
+j
Q
rO
|— +j -—
^
ro -^.
O
r«.
co
ro
o
ro
, —
to
O
ro
CD
LO
LO
l/l
E
00 0 0)
00
*
<3-
ro
ro
CM
CTl
LO
O
o
00
CD
E
to
to
r-^
r»«
to
to
to
«*
CM
*3"
r-^
to
LO
3
oo
* — "
ro
>
CO
o
o
i —
CM
a-i
00
, —
LO
l>»
CTi
CD
CD
o
o
r>
LO
co
ro
LO
r^
CM
O
r^
LO
«3-
CD
to
to
to
CO
i —
lo
00
«3-
«3"
O
i —
o
ro
•I—
it-
LO
o
«*
i —
a-i
*
co
O
ro
ro
00
^3"
to
4->
CD- ro
O
^3-
ro
o
<3-
o
00
00
CM
CD
ro
r~~
ro
c
ro
ro
CM
CM
CM
ro
ro
*3"
ro
ro
CD
#*
m
<_)
«3"
4.
Q-
,
-C
en ~^~.
CTi
^r
<*
o
CM
LO
o
CT)
CM
LO
CM
CM
to
+J
Q CT>
ro
^f
LO
ro
**
LO
«*
ro
<3-
CM
00
o
■— H- E
tO
to
r>«
r^
to
to
to
*t
CM
ro
LO
to
«^"
CT)
ro
s_
co
i —
CT)
LO
o
ro
o
*3"
CM
i —
oo
CO
CTi
o
p^
to
"*
CD
1—
r^
oo
CM
O
^3"
r^
00
1 —
+J
r-»
*3-
Csl
O
>=3-
LO
CM
«*
«3"
LO
r^
ro
ro
CO *-~-
•r- 4_
CO
o
ro
o
to
ro
LO
CTl
r^»
CM
p^
oo
ro
3: cr ro
ro
<3-
«*
o
LO
"=3"
«t
to
1 —
CO
ro
, —
«H-
ro
ro
(XI
CsJ
CM
ro
ro
LO
CNJ
LO
CM
CM
00
"=3"
^-^
LO
i —
CtJ
1 —
co
to
LO
CM
r^
CD
LO
i— CT>
CO
co
LO
to
CT)
00
a->
CO
<*
ro
o
^3"
E
LO
LT)
to
to
ID
LO
LO
ro
CM
ro
LO
to
"=3-
t|_ > —
O
ro -— -
a. •—
3 \
+j j*: A™ ct>
rO O E
-o
Ol
00 Q.
+J
Q
re
1— +j ^
3
rO ■«>.
o
O
CM
o
I*-
•3"
CM
CTi
ro
to
to
CD
LO
E
OO O CT)
co
CO
«*
LO
CO
1
CO
«3-
00
ro
i —
CD
ro
E
lo
LO
to
to
LO
LO
LO
ro
CM
ro
LO
LO
^3"
OO
LO
LO
*3"
C\J
I —
«*
oo
«d-
CM
,
!
CM
LO
to
o
CNJ
00
ro
ro
to
o
o
to
to
LO
LO
i —
o
CO
CT)
LO
r>s
CT)
t-*
CM
CTi
1 —
o
CO
CD
3
4-
ro
o
to
co
CM
co
I*»
1-^
LO
ro
to
CM
cy ro
LO
■=3-
LO
ro
ro
ro
oo
LO
CM
r^
rO
«t
"3"
ro
ro
ro
to
LO
O
CM
o
ro
ro
o
>
Ol
•""
CM
r—
00
+J
c:
OO *«*
CT)
CO
CM
00
O
o
CM
r>«
oo
oo
r-^
CM
CD
Q CT)
«*■
r~
«3-
«=f
CTi
CT)
LO
00
CD
LO
ro
CM
o
i— 1— E
LO
LO
to
to
ID
LO
LO
ro
CM
CM
<3-
LO
«3-
s_
rO
QJ
O
Q.
S-
to
CD
*3"
to
LO
LO
r~~
00
LO
00
to
-C
o
r-
o
^f
CT>
00
o
■=3-
CD
ro
LO
r-^
ro
+->
+J
LO
<3-
1 —
ro
O
ro
to
to
CM
ro
ro
r-^
CT)
o
on - — -
LO
■f- 4-
CTI
o
r~
o
LO
r~
en
*
to
*3"
ia ro
CO
*f
to
CsJ
*3"
ro
^3"
ro
CM
^3-
^3"
ro
CM
«*■
>3-
ro
ro
ro
to
LO
-"
ro
CM
CvJ
«3-
«3"
CO
x:
(
ro
3
1
o
•i—
Ol
>s
+->
+J
>
<_)
c
.O.
i-
s-
>i
c
CT)
O-
o
o
<d
rO
Ol
ro
o_
rO
3
3
3
O)
o
■z.
O
■"3
LL-
s:
<
s:
O
■"D
<c
OO
355
0)
CI)
c
e
i-
a
C1J
>
CI)
>
cc
0)
^.
CM
■*
1 —
0
to
to
1 —
00
00
to
^d"
CD
O
i — CD
CM
r^-
uo
CO
uo
to
to
^f
r~-
00
cn
cn
to
E
r~-
to
r^
r~-
to
to
to
UO
CM
•3-
cn
r--
uo
4- —
O
ro -— ^
a. .—
3 ^
4-> ^: _\N cn
ro o E
-a
<u
00 Q.
4->
CD
ro
1— +j ,-^
3
ro \
LT)
<3-
co
uo
00
l~-
r~~.
CM
uo
cn
CD
uo
cn
m
E
oo O en
O
UO
00
00
<3-
<=t
OO
to
uo
CM
00
0)
E
r-^
to
r->.
r-^
to
to
to
UO
CM
>=J-
cn
r-.
uo
3
OO
ro
=>
oo
cn
to
t-^
cn
cn
CM
00
r~-
^J-
, —
00
00
cr>
to
to
r^
CO
r-^
CM
CD
■a-
00
0
O
00
Ol
O
co
00
r^
0
i —
"*
1 —
0
1 —
to
O
to
■r-
it-
U0
r-^
1 —
00
to
■=d-
OO
O
■ —
CO
cn
O
uo
4->
er ro
o
oo
00
cn
*3-
cn
to
^f-
0
uo
O
to
^3-
C
oo
oo
CM
0M
CM
00
•^r
00
CD
o
1 —
•cd-
CD
Q.
'~>
-C
O0 ">*.
cn
«3-
«*
O
CM
uo
CD
cn
CM
uo
CM
CM
to
+J
CZ3 CT1
oo
^f
uo
0O
=3"
uo
^J"
00
^t"
CM
00
o
-—1— E
to
to
r^
r-^
to
to
to
*d-
CM
00
UO
to
^1-
(Ti
ro — -
o
£
oo
1 —
cn
uo
0
00
O
^a-
CM
1 —
00
CO
cn
o
r->.
to
^3-
cn
r^~
00
CM
O
"3-
r^-
00
r^.
+J
r^
*d-
CM
CD
<3-
uo
CM
>*
^d-
uo
(^
00
00
to »—»
•i- 4-
CO
O
0O
O
to
00
UO
cn
r~-
CM
r^
00
00
:n o- ro
oo
■=*
<*
CD
uo
■3-
«*
to
OO
00
^r
oo
oo
CM
CM
CM
00
O0
uo
CM
UO
CM
CM
00
^-^
**^
o
"3-
t~^
r--»
O
00
1 —
r~.
1 —
^t-
00
, —
uo
i— en
r-»
r~»
•3-
0
cn
to
to
UO
r^
E
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
<*
CM
CO
to
to
^3-
<+- «-^
o
ro -—
Q- i—
3 ->>.
+-> -^ Jf CD
ro o E
■o
aj
O0 CL
+j
Q
ra
t— +-> *—■
3
ro ^
oo
r^
uo
co
<=i-
00
CM
00
r-^
to
cn
^1-
CM
E
wo oi
cn
cn
uo
*d-
co
00
O
CD
00
uo
r^.
00
to
E
uo
uo
to
to
UO
to
to
"=1-
CM
00
uo
to
"*
00
co
cn
uo
cn
cn
cn
O0
co
O0
J
<3-
cn
r^~
r-~
to
^3-
00
00
CM
'd-
r^
uo
00
00
(/>
r-^
cn
uo
uo
CM
CO
00
UO
^f
^r
CM
uo
CD
3
4-
o
CM
cn
0
cn
CM
00
1 —
uo
cn
UO
cn
O
cr ro
uo
CM
00
CM
cn
0
uo
•=r
CM
O
O
A3
^d-
=d-
00
00
00
uo
uo
0
O
0O
00
CO
>
,
CM
r-^
Ol
+->
r—
c:
oo ^
cn
co
CM
co
O
O
CM
r-^
co
CM
r-~
CM
0)
Q en
^a-
r~-
^r
<*
cn
cn
uo
CO
cn
UO
00
CM
o
r— h- E
U0
uo
to
to
uo
uo
uo
00
CM
CM
<3"
uo
<3-
S-
ro — -
CD
u
O.
•i—
S-
i —
to
cn
<^-
to
uo
uo
r~-
CO
1 —
UO
CO
to
.c
o
r~«
0
"5*
cn
00
O
'd-
cn
00
UO
r--.
00
+->
4->
uo
^J-
OO
O
00
to
to
CM
00
00
r^
cn
o
c/1 -- -
uo
■r- M-
cn
i —
0
r^
CD
uo
r^
cn
1 —
*3-
to
1 —
>3-
3Z o- ro
CO
>=d-
to
CM
«*
00
^1-
00
CM
■=3-
=3-
00
CM
^1-
*3-
00
OO
OO
to
uo
-'
OO
CM
CM
^1-
>=j-
00
_c
,
ro
3
c
5
0
0J
5-,
+->
4->
>
0
C
JO
s.
u
>>
c
cn
CL
O
o
oj
ro
CD
(O
Q.
ro
3
3
3
<U
o
2:
0
■"3
u_
2:
<C
s:
ra
■"3
<C
O0
356
1 —
LO
CTl
i —
LO
CD
CD
OO
LO
OO
r~.
o
,
LO
^^
<3-
OO
r-.
o
LO
r-.
r-
r~-
CO
OO
LO
LO
00
i— CO
r~~
LO
i —
CO
LO
LO
LO
LO
CM
LO
•«d-
CD
LO
E
M_ _
, —
O
ro *— •
Q. i—
3 -~-.
-l-> -^ J," CD
03 <-> E
"O
QJ
OO Q-
-t->
Q
1X3
|— +J ^
i —
i — i —
LO
OO
oo
00
CD
i —
CTl
CD
1 —
OO
t-^
CD
, —
3
03 ^
o
LO
CM
^3-
CM
LO
>^-
CM
LO
LO
CM
O
•>a-
l/l
E
00 O CD
r--
LO
!-^
r~.
LO
LO
LO
LO
CM
*3-
00
LO
OJ
•i—
E
*»
3
oo
*•—*
1 —
03
^»
1 —
■3-
CM
OO
i —
«=1-
CM
LO
OO
, —
^d-
OO
»a-
CM
CD
LO
OO
OO
r~-
CD
CM
CO
LO
o
CM
CD
CD
LO
O
CM
r~-
00
oo
CD
OO
LO
CM
LO
co
•r—
<+-
*d-
LO
l-^
OO
CM
CD
LO
r^
, —
"3-
LO
CO
r~~
+J
cr ro
CD
CM
oo
OO
r-
'^-
CO
LO
CM
r---
CD
C
CM
OO
CM
CM
CM
oo
OO
O
OO
CO
0)
o
oo
S-
O-
.c
oo ~--
CTl
<*
"3-
o
CM
LO
o
CD
CM
LO
CM
CM
LO
+->
o en
ro
^d-
LO
OO
«*
LO
<3-
OO
^r
CM
00
o
•— \— E
LO
LO
r^
r^
LO
LO
LO
<=i-
CM
OO
LO
LO
*3-
cd
03 - —
i-
co
1 —
CTl
LT)
O
CO
O
*3-
CM
1 —
00
CO
CD
o
o-
ld
«d"
CD
r~~
00
CM
O
«3-
i —
00
r^
+->
r-~.
*d-
CM
o
"3-
LO
CM
*d-
*3"
LO
r~-
O0
oo
</i - — -
•i- 4-
CO
O
OO
o
LO
OO
LO
CD
r~
OvJ
r-~
CO
oo
DZ O- 03
OO
«3-
*d-
o
LO
>=a-
*d-
LO
i —
OO
oo
^1-
CO
oo
CM
CM
CM
oo
oo
LO
CM
LO
CM
CM
00
, — ,
-~^
r^
lo
o
LO
CD
LO
CM
LO
oo
"=1-
r-
■— cn
CM
CM
CD
CD
CM
OO
i —
o
CD
o
CO
CD
r~-
E
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
■*
CM
*d-
LO
LO
"^J-
U- -~-^
o
03 '— -
Q- r—
3 \
+-> -^ „\N CT>
lO O E
-o
OJ
OO CL
+j
Q
03
h- +-> -—
3
03 ■ —
O
lo
OO
LO
CD
OO
LO
CD
oo
00
CO
OO
CD
E
00 O CD
o
LO
LO
00
CM
o
CD
oo
LO
oo
LO
LO
•1—
E
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
OO
CM
oo
LO
LO
■=d"
oo
CM
CM
r--
OO
CD
CD
o
r--
,
CD
r~-
,
r^
LO
cn
r~-
CD
CD
OO
00
LO
CD
00
CM
o
O
c/l
r~-
LO
1 —
O
O
O
OO
LO
O
<3-
O
*3"
oo
CL)
3
4-
r~-
CD
LO
LO
OO
<*
LO
OO
CD
LO
OO
O" 03
oo
CM
CD
r^.
CD
LO
CD
LO
1 —
LO
o
03
*~^
<=J-
*3-
OO
CM
OO
LO
<3-
CD
O
CD
CM
CM
<3"
>
CM
r~
QJ
+J
1 —
cz
OO -^
CD
oo
CM
00
o
o
CM
r--
00
CM
r^
CM
O)
Q CD
^d-
r-.
■^r
"=1-
CD
CD
LO
00
CD
LO
OO
CM
o
.— 1— E
LO
lo
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
OO
CM
CM
<3"
LO
*d-
S-
03 - — -
(U
o
O-
i-
LO
CD
<3"
LO
LO
LO
r-
00
LO
co
LO
-C
o
r-^
o
*3"
CD
00
O
•=J-
CD
OO
LO
r»-
OO
+->
4->
LO
^a-
O0
O
OO
LO
LO
CM
ro
OO
r-
CD
o
l/l - — -
lo
•i- 4-
CD
o
1 —
O
LO
1 —
CD
■=J-
LO
*d-
:n cr 03
00
^t-
LO
CM
<=d-
OO
•3"
OO
CM
^3-
'd-
oo
CM
<d-
■=]-
OO
OO
OO
LO
LO
-^
OO
CM
CM
^r
^~
co
-C
,
03
3
o
CU
>>
4->
+->
>
o
c
.Ct
t-
i_
>>
c
1 —
CD
CL
<_)
o
cu
03
CD
03
CL
03
3
3
3
Ol
5
o
^
Q
""O
u_
s:
<c
s:
""D
^>
<c
O0
357
1500 -
1400 -
1300 -
1200 -
1100 -
1000 -
900 -
o
800 -
c
o
700 -
600 -
o
t^— "— Tij
500 -
400 -
300 -
200
100 -
0 4
Level of
Development
Salt Pickup
(tons/acre/year)
High
High
Intermediate
Historical
NOTE- 50fh Percentile Values
,• ^
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 26. Comparison of historical and simulated TDS concentra-
tions in the Yellowstone River near Sidney at 50th percentile flow
values.
358
Level of
Development
Salt Pickup
(tons/acre/year)
1500 -i
1400 -
1300 -
1200
1100 -
1000 -
£ 900 -
° 800 -
700
a
f 600
a)
>
<
500
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
High
High
Intermediate
Historical
NOTE- 90,h Percentile Values
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 27. Comparison of historical and simulated TDS concentra-
tions in the Yellowstone River near Sidney at 90th percentile flow
values.
359
o
r— o
• t
•l
*•
O ">
O ."5
* o
V)
8 1
(I/6UJ) UOHDJ|U90UO0 9jD^|nS : *0S
360
215 mg/1 to 275 mg/1 (approximately). The S04 water quality standard of 250 mg/1
is exceeded in five months of the year under historical (considered natural by
Montana law) conditions during a 50th percentile flow year. This frequency of
standard violation would increase to seven months per year under the low level
of development and to eight months under the intermediate and high levels of
development.
Hardness would increase in proportion to higher TDS levels. In the Yellow-
stone River near Sidney, a 100 mg/1 increase in TDS increases hardness by approx-
imately 45 units. An increase in TDS from 500 to 600 mg/1 would therefore
result in a hardness of 290 mg/1. Although no legal standards have been adopted
for hardness, anything over 100 mg/1 becomes increasingly inconvenient for domes-
tic use and some industrial applications.
Nutrient concentrations may increase because of fertilizer applications to
new irrigation lands and because less water would be in the stream for dilution.
Water temperatures would be somewhat higher because of reduced streamflows, but
probably not more than h°C. The river's waste assimilation capacity would be
diminished. Dissolved oxygen levels may be reduced and diurnal variations would
increase, primarily in late summer of low-flow years (Knudson and Swanson 1976).
Summary
The low level of development would have minor impacts on the overall water
quality of the Yellowstone River near Sidney—only August and September of dry
years would show significant increases in TDS. The high level of development,
however, would cause a major reduction in water quality, especially during July,
August, September, and October. During this four-month period, 50th percentile
level discharges would be reduced more than 25 percent (38 percent during August
and September) and 90th percentile level discharges would be reduced more than
40 percent (65 percent during August and September). Flow reductions of such
magnitude would be accompanied by major increases in salinity, especially during
the latter part of the irrigation season. Furthermore, nutrient levels pro-
bably would increase; water temperature and its diurnal range may increase,
and dissolved oxygen and suspended sediment concentrations may decrease.
The net effect would be a deterioration of water quality and the aquatic
environment. The water would be suitable for most beneficial uses most of the
time. Municipal and industrial users may sustain higher treatment costs (al-
though a reduction in TSS, if it were to occur, could reduce treatment costs)
or more inconvenience (scaling, for example). Irrigators may encounter more
salinity and drainage problems, reduced yields, or the necessity of more con-
trolled management of their irrigation practices. The aquatic environment
would suffer stresses because of the reductions in flow and degradation of
water qual ity.
361
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
INTRODUCTION
The methodology described in previous sections should not be considered
infallible, but rather a "first generation" attempt to evaluate the flow of
water and salt through the Yellowstone River Basin. There are several areas
in which improvement could be made. Unfortunately, most such improvements
are dependent upon data which have not been collected and field studies that
have not been performed. Hence, there is an element of the unknown in several
of the assumptions used. One unknown, total salt pickup by irrigation return
flows, was acknowledged in the model through the use of two levels of salt
pickup in most subbasins; that is, zero and one ton per acre per year. The
actual salt pickup probably varies over a wide range of values throughout the
basin. Also unknown is the distribution of return flows and the concentration
of salts in return flow, both of which probably show considerably spatial and
temporal variation.
DISTRIBUTION OF SALT RETURN
In the model irrigation return flows both salt and water were distributed
according to the monthly percentages discussed previously in the explanation
of table 20. In effect, irrigation return flow was assumed to have the same
TDS concentration each month of the year. To test the sensitivity of the model
a different distribution of salts was used, based on the following assumptions:
1) Return flow (water) is distributed according to the original
assumption; i.e., beginning in April, each month's percentage of
the total annual return flow is as follows: 4, 11, 14, 18, 18,
10, 8, 5, 4, 3, 2, 3.
2) Fifty percent of salt is returned during the October-to-March period,
when flow is essentially all subsurface.
3) Fifty percent of salt is returned during the April -to-September
period.
4) The resulting percentages of salt returned each month are as follows,
beginning with April: 2.7, 7.3, 9.3, 12.0, 12.0, 6.7, 16.0, 10.0,
8.0, 6.0, 4.0, 6.0. This is the "adjusted" salt distribution.
The above distribution reflects the concept that subsurface return flow which
predominates during the nonirrigation season, is higher in dissolved solids than
surface return flow, which is assumed to dominate during the irrigation season.
Comparisons were made of simulated stream TDS values in both the Tongue River
and lower Yellowstone subbasins. Results are discussed below.
Tongue River Subbasin
The Tongue River was selected for analysis because the original simulations
indicated that TDS would be increased substantially by further development. Use
of the adjusted salt return distribution did not alter the basic conclusion.
Figures 29 and 30 indicate that, as expected, the adjusted distribution simply
362
1700 -i
1600 -
1500 -
1400 -
Level of
Development
Solt Return
Distribution
Intermediate Adjusted
Intermediate Original
Historical - No New Diversions
1300 -
1200 -
100 -
| 1000 -
C/)
a
(- 900 -
o 800 -
2
S 700 -\
>
<
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100
Oct
Nov
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 29. Effect on TDS concentrations of changing the monthly
distribution of salt return from irrigation in the Tongue River near
Miles City, using the intermediate level of development.
363
1700 -i
1600 -
1500 -
1400 -
1300 -
1200 -
1100 -
1000 -
en
n
K
900 -
>»
.e
c
o
800 -
2
o>
o
700 -
»
>
<
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
Level of
Development
Salt Return
Distribution
High Adjusted
High Original
Historical — No New Diversions
Oct ' Nov ' Dec
Jan
Feb Mar Apr May
June
July ' Aug ' Sept '
Figure 30. Effects on TDS concentrations of changing the monthly
distribution of salt return from irrigation in the Tongue River near
Miles City, using the high level of development.
364
shifts the highest simulated TDS values from July and August to October. Such
a shift, if it occurred in practice, would lessen the impacts of increased
salinity on irrigation because stream TDS would be less during the late irri-
gation season. Concentrations would still be significantly higher than under
natural conditions. Moreover, the maximum concentrations would increase, though
in October instead of August.
Lower Yellowstone Subbasin
The same change in stream salinity was evident in the lower Yellowstone
Subbasin as in the Tongue--TDS levels would be reduced in late summer and in-
creased during the fall and winter (figures 31 and 32). A shift of this nature
could be beneficial to irrigators. It must be emphasized, however, that the
adjusted salt return distribution probably underestimates the salt load return-
ing to the stream in late summer. Water temperature data from the Lower Yellow-
stone Project, for example, indicate that substantial subsurface return flows
may re-enter the river during the July-August period. During May, June, and
the first half of July, temperatures in the main canal drain were higher than
temperatures of the diverted water; from about July 15 until September 15 the
reverse was true--the drainage water was lower in temperature than the diverted
water (figure 33). A logical explanation is that during the early part of the
irrigation season, drainage water consisted primarily of surface irrigation
retirn flows which had increased in temperature during the irrigation cycle;
after mid-July the drainage canal recovered significant inputs of subsurface
irrigation return flows which tend to be cooler than surface flows. Hence,
drainage water containing subsurface return flows would be cooler than diverted
river water. Subsurface return flows from irrigation also are generally higher
in salinity than surface returns. Thus it is conceivable that June, July, and
September flows would have higher salt loads than originally assumed. The
conclusion remains the same: additional irrigation development of the magnitude
envisioned under the intermediate and high levels of development, would increase
TDS concentrations significantly and to the detriment of current irrigators.
SALT PICKUP
The analyses for each subbasin included two levels of salt pickup, zero
and one ton per acre per year. Generally, the graphs of TDS for each subbasin
contained a plot of the high level of development values for both levels of
salt pickup. In some instances, the intermediate level of development with
one ton per acre per year salt pickup would have a more severe impact than the
high level of development with zero salt pickup. In the lower Yellowstone, for
example, the average TDS would be 459 mg/1 for the high level of development
with zero salt pickup, but 475 mg/1 for the intermediate level of development
with one ton per acre per year salt pickup. Thus, the leaching of salts by
irrigation return flows can have significant impacts on stream salinity.
Figures 34 and 35 illustrate the importance of salt pickup on the Tongue River
and the lower Yellowstone. Obviously, as irrigation return flows comprise a
larger portion of total streamflow, the rate of salt accretion assumes more
importance.
365
1700 -i
1600 -
1500 -
1400 -
1300-
1200 -
MOO
1000-
w
Q
H 900 H
800 -
Level of
Development
Salt Return
Distribution
Intermediate Adjusted
Intermediate Original
Historical — No New Diversions
P 700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
300
200
100 -
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Oct Nov Dec Jan
Figure 31. Effects on TDS levels of adjusting the monthly distrib-
ution of salt return from irrigation in the Yellowstone River near Sid-
ney, using the intermediate level of development.
^gp;
700 -,
1600
1500 -
1400 -
1300
1200
100-
1000 -
900
800 -
o 700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
Level of
Development
Salt Return
Distribution
High Adjusted
High Original
Historical - No New Diversions
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 32. Effects on TDS levels of adjusting the monthly distrib-
ution of salt return from irrigation in the Yellowstone River near Sid-
ney, using the high level of development.
367
- PJ <»
(Do) 3Jn|DJ9diuai J3*dm *l!Da uunimxow
368
1700 -i
1600 -
1500 -
1400-
1300 -
1200 -
1100 —
I* 1000-
900 -
% 800-
Level of
Development
Salt Pickup
(tons/acre/year)
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
NOTE; 50th Percentile Values
o 700 -
>
<
600-
500-
400-
300-
200
100-
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 34. Effects of salt pickup rate on TDS concentrations in
the Yellowstone River near Sidney, using the intermediate level of de-
velopment at 50th percentile flows.
369
3400 -i
3200 -
3000
2800 -
2600
2400 -
2200 -
I* 2000 -
Level of
Development
Salt Pickup
(tons /acre/year)
1800 -
1600
o 1400 -
>
<
1200
1000 -
800 -
600 -
400 -
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
NOTE-- 50th Percentile Values
200 -
Oct ' Nov ' Dec
Jan
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Figure 35. Effects of salt pickup rate on TDS concentrations in the
Tongue River near Miles City, using the intermediate level of development
at 50th percentile flows.
370
EXOGENOUS INFLUENCES
According to the assumptions of this study, the three dominant beneficial
uses for which water will be diverted from streams in the basin over the next
several years will be for irrigation, energy conversions, and municipal use.
Consequently, water quality would be influenced primarily by these uses. There
are other land and water uses, however, with the potential to diminish water
quality, particularly in smaller streams or short reaches of larger streams.
DRYLAND FARMING
In eastern Montana, large tracts of rangeland are being converted to dry-
land farming, principally for the production of wheat. Geissler (1976) quotes
an agricultural official's estimate that 50,000 new acres were turned over to
wheat farming in 1975 and 1976. Some of this land is very fragile, and increased
erosion by both wind and water is likely. The EPA (1973) reports that average
erosion rates are 15 to 20 times higher from cropland than from rangeland.
Through increased erosion, cropland may also contribute sediment, salts, nutri-
ents, pesticides, organic loads, and bacteria. Consequently, increased dryland
farming may adversely affect the water quality of streams in the Yellowstone
River Basin.
SALINE SEEP
Saline seep is a process in which surface water infiltrates the soil pro-
file, encounters a saline layer from which salts are dissolved, and emerges
downslope. This saline seep may pond below the point of emergence, killing the
vegetation and leaving a deposit of white salt when the water evaporates, or it
may enter a watercourse and increase stream salinity. Kaiser et al . (1975)
estimate that more than 25,000 acres in the Yellowstone River Basin of Montana
are affected by saline seep. Dryland farming aggravates this condition; unless
different farming methods are adopted, saline seep is likely to become a greater
problem. Saline seep also can be caused by brines from oil and gas drilling
operations, and possibly by leaching from coal spoil banks--both activities are
prevalent in eastern Montana.
SILVICULTURE
About 11.5 percent of the Yellowstone River's watershed in Montana is
comprised of forests. For physical and economic reasons, only a limited amount
of timber harvesting from these forests occurs at present, and production is
unlikely to increase dramatically in the future. Selective harvesting, however,
has the potential to significantly degrade local water quality. Some of the
major sources of pollution from forests are disturbances which may be of natural
origin, such as fires, disease, and earthquakes. Others may be caused by man.
Principal pollutants are sediment, organic matter, chemicals (such as pesticides,
fertilizers, and fire retardants), nutrients, and bacteria. Moreover, removal
of streamside vegetation can cause thermal pollution of streams. The erosion
rate from a harvested forest can be 500 times higher than that from an undis-
turbed forest and 2.5 times greater than that from Copland, according to a
371
report by the EPA (1973). The same report also describes methods of predicting
and controlling pollution from silviculture activities; these practices should,
if followed, adequately contain water pollution.
NONCOAL MINERAL EXTRACTION
Eastern Montana contains several minerals other than coal that are commer-
cially extractable, including oil and gas, sand and gravel, clays, gypsum,
uranium, thorium, and chromite. All are potential contributors to water pol-
lution. Currently, oil and gas wells are a widespread source of brine waters,
but pollution can be limited to areas near the wells through ponding and in-
jection techniques. Potential problems are the mining of chromite from the
Stillwater Complex in Sweetgrass and Stillwater counties, and the extraction
of uranium and thorium from Carbon and Bighorn counties or from the Wyoming
portion of the watershed.
WYOMING ACTIVITIES
Under the Yellowstone River Compact, Wyoming is entitled to a substantial
portion of unappropriated waters of major tributaries to the Yellowstone River,
ranging from 40 percent of the Tongue River to 80 percent of the Bighorn River.
Although the exact quantities have not been determined, Wyoming estimates its
share to be more than 2.4 mmaf/y. Although Wyoming has no firm plans to use
this much water, significant diversions and depletions upstream, accompanied by
return flows of lower quality than existing streamflows, could degrade water
quality of the tributaries, especially the Powder and Tongue rivers and the
lower Yellowstone River.
NATIONAL AND STATE POLICIES
Controls have been or can be developed to control most water pollution.
Remedies may require treatment of wastewater before discharge, modifications
to the process producing the waste, or in an extreme case, curtailment of the
pollution-causing activity. All remedies are influenced or controlled by
governmental regulations. Thus, the major exogenous factors affecting future
water quality of the Yellowstone River may well be policies of state and fed-
eral governments. An increasing demand in the future for food and energy
could lead to weakening of environmental standards. The combination of addi-
tional energy extraction and conversion, expanded agricultural activities in
the Yellowstone River Basin, and relaxed controls on environmental pollution
could result in a major deterioration of water quality.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) The study was hindered because of lack of information on irrigation
practices in the Yellowstone River Basin. It is suggested that a
systematic long-term research program be initiated to collect data
on the following: amount of water diverted for irrigation, volume
and distribution of return flows, quality of return flows, and the
impact of irrigation on streamflow.
372
2) A good beginning was made on integrating salinity calculations into
the state water planning model. Additional work is necessary, however,
to refine the salinity modeling, particularly on the lower subbasins.
3) Operations at Colstrip involving wastewater should be carefully moni-
tored to determine the impact of a large energy conversion facility
on water qual ity.
4) In July and August of low-flow years, salinity in the Bighorn River
increases significantly. Salinity would be reduced and water quality
enhanced if a minimum flow of about 1000 cfs were maintained in the
river.
5) Considering the potential adverse impacts on water quality resulting
from additional irrigation in the Powder and Tongue subbasins, it is
suggested that a more thorough analysis be made of these two basins
before substantial new developments are undertaken.
373
rfpjitoultz ?4
PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE USE
FIGURES
A-l. The Nine Planning Subbasins of the Yellowstone Basin 377
TABLES
A-l. Increased Water Requirements for Coal Development
in the Yellowstone Basin in 2000 377
A-2. The Increase in Water Depletion for Energy
by the Year 2000 by Subbasin 378
A-3. Feasibly Irrigable Acreage by County and Subbasin
by 2000, High Level of Development 379
A-4. The Increase in Water Depletion for Irrigated Agriculture
by 2000 by Subbasin 380
A-5. The Increase in Water Depletion for Municipal Use by 2000 . . . 380
A-6. The Increase in Water Depletion for Consumptive Use
by 2000 by Subbasin 381
375
In order to adequately and uniformly assess the potential effects of water
withdrawals on the many aspects of the present study, projections of specific
levels of future withdrawals were necessary. The methodology by which these
projections were done is explained in Report No. 1 in this series, in which
also the three projected levels of development, low, intermediate, and high, are
explained in more detail. Summarized below, these three future levels of
development were formulated for energy, irrigation, and municipal water use
for each of the nine subbasins identified in figure A-l .
ENERGY WATER USE
In 1975, over 22 million tons of coal (19 million metric tons) were mined
in the state, up from 14 million (13 million metric) in 1974, 11 million (10
million metric) in 1973, and 1 million (.9 million metric) in 1969. By 1980,
even if no new contracts are entered, Montana's annual coal production will
exceed 40 million tons (36 million metric tons). Coal reserves, estimated at
over 50 billion economically strippable tons (45 billion metric tons) (Montana
Energy Advisory Council 1976), pose no serious constraint to the levels of
development projected, which range from 186.7 (170.3 metric) to 462.8 (419.9
metric) million tons stripped in the basin annually by the year 2000.
Table A-l shows the amount of coal mined, total conversion production,
and associated consumption for six coal development activities expected to take
place in the basin by the year 2000. Table A-2 shows water consumption by sub-
basin for those six activities. Only the Bighorn, Mid-Yellowstone, Tongue, Powder,
and Lower Yellowstone subbasins would experience coal mining or associated
development in these projections.
IRRIGATION WATER USE
Lands in the basin which are now either fully or partially irrigated total
about 263,000 ha (650,000 acres) and consume annually about 1,850 hm^ 0,5 mrnaf)
of water. Irrigated agriculture in the Yellowstone Basin has been increasing
since 1971 (Montana DNRC 1975). Much of this expansion can be attributed to
the introduction of sprinkler irrigation systems.
After evaluating Yellowstone Basin land suitability for irrigation, con-
sidering soils, economic viability, and water availability (only the Yellowstone
River and its four main tributaries, Clarks Fork, Bighorn, Tongue, and Powder,
were considered as water sources), this study concluded that 95,900 ha (237,000
acres) in the basin are financially feasible for irrigation. These acres are
identified by county and subbasin in table A-3; table A-4 presents projections
of water depletion.
Three levels of development were projected. The lowest includes one-third,
the intermediate, two-thirds, and the highest, all of the feasibly irrigable
acreage.
376
1 Upper Yellowstone
2 Clarks Fork Yellowstone
3 Billings Area
4 Bighorn
5 Mid -Yellowstone
6 To n g u e
7 Kinsey Area
8 Powder
9 Lower Yellowstone
Figure A-1. The nine planning subbasins of the Yellowstone basin.
TABLE A-1. Increased water requirements for coal development in the Yellowstone
Basin in 2000.
Level of
Development
Coal Development Activity
Electric
Generation
Gasifi-
cation
Syncrude
Ferti-
lizer
Export
Strip
Mining
Total
COAL MINED (mmt/y)
Low
Intermediate
High
a. i
24.0
32.0
7.6
7.6
22.3
0.0
0.0
36.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
171.1
293.2
368.5
186.7
324.8
462.8
CONVERSION PRODUCTION
Low
Intermediate
High
2000 mw
6000 mw
8000 mw
250 mmcfd
250 mmcfd
750 mmcfd
0 b/d
0 b/d
200,000 b/d
0 t/d
0 t/d
2300 t/d
WATER CONSUMPTION (af/y)
Low
Intermediate
High
30,000
90,000
120,000
9,000
9,000
27,000
0
0
58,000
0
0
13,000
a
31,910
80.210
9,350
16,250
22,980
43,350
147,160
321,190
CONVERSIONS: 1 mmt/y (short) = .907 mmt/y (metric)
1 af/y = .00123 hm3/y
No water consumption is shown for export under the low level of development because, for that
development level, it is assumed that all export is by rail, rather than by slurry pipeline.
377
TABLE A-2. The increase
in water depletion for energy by the year 2000
by subbasin.
Subbasin
Elec.
Generation
INCREASE IN DEPLETION (af/y)
Gasifi-
cation
Syn- Ferti-
crude lizer
Export
Strip
Mining
Total
LOW LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT
Bighorn
0
0
0
0
0
860
860
Mid-Yel lowstone
22,500
9,000
0
0
0
3,680
35,180
Tongue
7,500
0
0
0
0
3,950
11 ,450
Powder
0
0
0
0
0
360
860
Lower Yellowstone
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
30,000
9,000
9,350
48,350
INTERMEDIATE
LEVEL
OF
DEVELOPMENT
Bighorn
Mid-Yel lowstone
Tongue
Powder
Lower Yel lowstone
0
45,000
30,000
15,000
0
0
9,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,420
15,380
9,900
2,210
0
1,470
6,110
7,000
1,670
0
5,890
75,490
46,900
18,880
0
Total
90,000
9,000
31 ,910
16,250
147,160
HIGH LEVEL
OF
DEVELOPMENT
Bighorn
Mid-Yellowstone
Tongue
Powder
Lower Yel lowstone
15,000
45,000
45,000
15,000
0
0 0
18,000 29,000
9,000 29,000
0 0
0 0
13
0
0
0
0
,000
11,100
38,700
24,860
5,550
0
2,050
8,710
10,170
2,050
0
28,150
139,410
118,030
22,600
13,000
Total
120,000
27,000 58,000
13
000
80,210
22,980
321,190
CONVERSIONS: 1 af/y = .00123 hm /y
NOTE: The four subbasins not shown (Upper Yellowstone, Billings Area, Clarks Fork
Yellowstone, Kinsey Area) are not expected to experience water depletion associated
with coal development.
378
TABLE A-3. Feasibly irrigable acreage by county and subbasin by 2000, high level
of development.
Upper
Clarks
Bill
ings
Bi
J
Mid
Tongue
Kinsey
Powder
Lower
County
County
Vel lowstone
Fork
Area
Horn
Yellowstone
River
Area
River
Yel lowstone
Totals
Park
21
664
21,664
Sweet Grass
10
204
10,204
Sti 1 lwater
6
,203
6,208
Carbon
2,160
2,160
Yellow-
stone
19
412
19,412
Big Horn
13
037
2,185
15,222
Treasure
9,591
9,591
Rosebud
11,408
9,727
21,135
Powder
River
46,853
46,853
Custer
4,230
10,035
3,092
26.438
43,795
Prairie
1 ,644
1,914
8
231
'11,739
Dawson
18
355
18,355
Richland
10
421
10,421
Wibaux
633
633
BASIN
TOTALS
38
076
2,160
19
412
13
037
25,229
21,947
4,736
75,205
37
670
237,472
CONVERSIONS: 1 acre = .405 ha
NOTE: The number of irrigable acres for the low and intermediate development levels are one-third
and two-thirds, respectively, of the numbers given here. This table should not be considered an exhaustive
listing of all feasibly irrigable acreage in the Yellowstone Basin: it includes only the acreage identified
as feasibly irrigable according to the geographic and economic constraints explained elsewhere in this repprt.
MUNICIPAL WATER USE
The basin's projected population increase and associated municipal water
use depletion for each level of development are shown in table A-5. Even the
13 hm3/y (10,620 af/y) depletion increase by 2000 shown for the highest develop-
ment level is not significant compared to the projected depletion increases for
irrigation or coal development. Nor is any problem anticipated in the availability
of water to satisfy this increase in municipal use.
WATER AVAILABILITY FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE
The average annua"! yield of the Yellowstone Ri
at the 1970 level of development, is 10,850 hm3 (8.
in table A-6, the additional annual depletions requ
level of development total about 999 hm3 (812,000 a
these two numbers might lead to the conclusion that
such development, and more. That conclusion would
because of the extreme variation of Yellowstone Bas
to year, from month to month, and from place to pi a
at certain times the water supply will be adequate
But in some of the tributaries and during low-flow
availability problems, even under the low level of
and sometimes very serious.
ver Basin at Sidney, Montana,
8 million af) . As shown
ired for the high projected
cre-feet). Comparison of
there is ample water for
be erroneous, however,
in streamflows from year
ce. At certain places and
in the foreseeable future,
times of many years, water
development, will be very real
379
TABLE A-4. The increase in water depletion for irrigated agriculture by 2000
by subbasin.
Subbasin
Acreage
Increase
Increase in
Depletion (af/y]
HIGH LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT
Upper Yellowstone
38,080
76,160
Clarks Fork
2,160
4,320
Billings Area
19,410
38,820
Bighorn
13,040
26,080
Mid-Yellowstone
25,230
50,460
Tongue
21,950
43,900
Kinsey Area
4,740
9,480
Powder
75,200
150,400
Lower Yellowstone
37,670
75,340
TOTAL
237,480
474,960
INTERMEDIATE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT
BASIN TOTAL
158,320
316,640
LOW LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT
BASIN TOTAL
79,160
158,320
CONVERSIONS:
1 acre = .405 ha
1 af/y = .00123 hm3/y
NOTE: The numbers of irrigated acres at the low and intermediate
levels of development are not shown by subbasin; however, those numbers
are one-third and two-thirds, respectively, of the acres shown for each
subbasin at the high level of development.
TABLE A-5. The increase in water depletion for municipal use by 2000.
Level of Development
Population
Increase
Increase in
Depletion (af/y)
Low
Intermediate
High
56,858
62,940
94,150
5,880
6,960
10,620
CONVERSIONS: 1 af/y = .00123 hm3/y
380
TABLE A-6. The increase in water depletion for consumptive use by 2000
by subbasin.
Subbasin
Irrigation
Increase in Depletion (af/y)
Energy
Municipal
Total
LOW LEVEL OF
DEVELOPMENT
Upper Yellowstone
25,380
0
0
25,380
Clarks Fork
1,440
0
0
1,440
Bil 1 ings Area
12,940
0
3,480
16,420
Bighorn
8,700
860
negligible
9,560
Mid-Yel lowstone
16,820
35,180
1,680
53,680
Tongue
14,640
11,450
negl igible
26,090
Kinsey Area
3,160
0
0
3,160
Powder
50,140
860
360
51,360
Lower Yel lowstone
25,120
0
360
25,480
TOTAL
158,340
48,350
5,880
212,570
INTERMEDIATE LEVEL
OF DEVELOPMENT
Upper Yellowstone
50,780
0
0
50,780
Clarks Fork
2,880
0
0
2,830
Billings Area
25,880
0
3,540
29,420
Bighorn
17,380
5,890
300
23,570
Mid-Yellowstone
33,640
75,490
1,860
110,990
Tongue
29,260
46,900
300
76,460
Kinsey Area
6,320
0
0
6,320
Powder
100,280
18,380
600
119,760
Lower Yel lowstone
50,200
0
360
50,560
TOTAL
316,620
147,160
6,960
470,740
HIGH LEVEL
OF DEVELOPMENT
'pDer Yellowstone
76,160
0
0
76,160
Clarks Fork
4,320
0
0
4,320
Billings Area
38,820
0
3,900
42,720
Bighorn
26,030
28.150
480
54,710
Mid-Yellowstone
50,460
139,410
3,840
193,710
Tongue
43,900
118,030
780
162,710
Kinsey Area
9,480
0
0
9,480
Powder
150,400
22,600
1,140
174,140
Lower Yellowstone
75,340
13,000
4S0
88,32C
TOTAL
474,960
321 ,190
10,620
806,770
CONVERSIONS: 1 af/y = .00123 hnvVy
381
JLttetatcme cLUd
Allison, L.E. 1964. Salinity in relation to irrigation. Advances in
Agronomy 16:139-180.
APHA, AWWA, and WPCF. 1971. Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater. 13th edition. American Public Health Association, New
York.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. 1974. Liquefaction and chemical refining
of coal. Columbus, Ohio.
Bean, E.H. 1962. Progress report on water quality criteria. American Water
Works Association Journal 54:1313-1331.
Beartooth Resource Conservation and Development Project (and other agencies).
1973. A study of erosion and sedimentation--Montana portion, CI arks Fork
Yellowstone River Basin. Prepared for the 1973 Montana Legislative
Assembly, Helena.
Berg, R. 1977. Upper Yellowstone fishery. Montana Outdoors 8(2) :27-29.
Montana Department of Fish and Game, Helena.
Beychok, M. R. 1975. Process and environmental technology for producing SNG
and liquid fuels. EPA-660/2-75.011 . U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Bishop, C. 1974. Interview with district fisheries manager, Montana Department
of Fish and Game, Billings, June 25.
Boies, D. B., J. E. Levin, and B. Baratz. 1973. Technical and economic
evaluations of cooling systems blowdown control techniques. EPA-660/2-73-026
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Botz, M.K. and D. Pederson. 1976. Summary of water quality criteria
(preliminary draft). Water Quality Bureau, Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences, Helena. 2 pp.
Bovee, K.D. 1975. The determination, assessment, and design of "Instream
value" studies for the northern Great Plains region. Prepared for the
Northern Great Plains Resources Program, Denver; University of Montana,
Missoula. 205 pp.
Boyd, F. R. 1961. Welded tuffs and flows in the rhyolite plateau of
Yellowstone Park, Wyoming. Geological Society of America Bulletin.
72:387-426.
Brown, E. , M.W. Skougstad, and M.J. Fishman. 1970. Methods for collection
and analysis of water samples for dissolved minerals and gases. U.S.
Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Inventory, book 5,
chapter Al ; United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
160 pp.
383
Brown, R.M., N.I. McClelland, R.A. Deininger, and R.6. Tozer. 1970. A water
quality index - do we dare? (Presented at the National Symposium on
Data and Instrumentation for Water Quality Management, Madison, Wisconsin)
Water & Sewage Works 117:20.
Brown, R.M., N.I. McClelland, R.A. Deininger, and J.M. Landwehr. 1973.
Validating the WQI. Presented at the American Society of Civil Engineers
National Meeting on Water Resources Engineering, Washington, D.C.
Brown, R.M. and N.I. McClelland. 1974. Up from chaos: the Water Quality
Index as an effective instrument in water quality management. Presented
to the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers during the Meeting of the
Interstate Conference on the Environment, Cincinnati, Ohio. National
Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 27 pp.
California State Water Quality Control Board. 1963. Water Quality for live-
stock: guides for the evaluation of the quality of water used by live-
stock. State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, California.
Carter, R.W. and J. Davidian. 1968. General procedure for gaging streams.
U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Inventory book 3,
Chapter A6; United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
13 pp.
Chopey, N.O. 1974. Gas-from-coal : an update. Chemical Engineering. March.
Cochran, N.P. 1976. Oil and gas from coal . Scientific American. Vol. 234,
No. 5. May.
Colston, N.V. Jr. 1974. Characterization and treatment of urban land run-off.
EPA-670/2-74-096. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinati, Ohio.
Cooper, H. B.H. Jr. 1975. The ultimate disposal of ash and other solids from
electric power generation. Presented at Eighth Water Resources Symposium
on Water Management by the Electric Power Industry. January, 1976.
University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Davis, S.N. 1964. Silica in streams and ground water. American Journal of
Science 262:870-891.
Dickinson, E. 1975. Impact of developing synthetic fuels from coal and oil
shale in the western United States. Seminar at Montana State University,
Bozeman, Montana. December 15.
Dollhoph, D.J. and M.E. Majeras. 1975. Strip mine reclamation research located
at Decker Coal Company, Decker, Montana. Montana Agriculture Experimentation
Research Report 83.
Durfor, C.N. and E. Becker. 1964. Public water supplies of the 100 largest
cities in the United States, 1962. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply
Paper 1812; United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
364 pp.
384
Durum, W.H. and J. Haffty. 1963. Implications of the minor element content
of some major streams of the world. Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta 27:1-11.
Eldridge, E.F. 1960. Return irrigation waters: characteristics and effects.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Portland, Oregon.
Ellis, M.M. 1944. Water purity standards for fresh-water fishes. Special
Scientific Report No. 2, United States Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. 1965. Report on finely
divided solids and inland fisheries. Working Party on Water Quality
Criteria for European Freshwater Fish, Air Water Pollution 9(3) :151-168.
Geissler, R.H. 1976. Range lands ripped for new wheat boom. Billings Gazette,
Billings, Montana. May 16.
Gerloff, G.C. and F. Skoog. 1957. Nitrogen as a limiting factor for the
growth of Microcystis aeruginosa in southern Wisconsin lakes.
Ecology 38(4) :556-561 .
Gunnerson, C. 1966. An atlas of water pollution surveillance in the U.S.,
October 1, 1957 to September 30, 1965. Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, United States Department of the Interior, Cincinnati,
Ohio. 78 pp.
Guy, H.R. 1969. Laboratory theory and methods for sediment analysis.
U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Inventory, book 5,
chapter CI; United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
58 pp.
Hart, W.B., P. Doudoroff, and J. Greenbank. 1945. The evaluation of the
toxicity of industrial wastes, chemicals and other substances to fresh-
water fishes. Waste Control Laboratory, The Atlantic Refining
Company of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Hem, J.D. 1970. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of
natural water. 2nd edition. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper
1473; United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 363 pp.
Hodder, R.L. 1976. Senior Research Associate, Department of Animal and Range
Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman. Personal communication.
Hodder, R.L., D. E. Ryerson, R. Mogen, and J. Buchholz. 1972. Coal mine
spoils reclamation research project located at Western Energy Company,
Colstrip, Montana (progress report, 1970). Research Report 8, Montana
Agricultural Experiment Station, Montana State University, Bozeman, 56 pp.
Hodder, R.L., B.W. Sindelar, J. Buchholz, and D. E. Ryerson. 1973. Coal mine
land reclamation research located at Western Energy Company, Colstrip,
Montana (progress report, 1971). Research Report 20, Montana Agricultural
Experiment Station, Montana State University, Bozeman. 45 pp.
385
Horton, M.L., J.L. Wiersma, and J.L. Holbeisin. 1976. Animal waste management
in the northern Great Plains. EPA-600/2-76-188. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma.
Inhaber, H. 1975. An approach to a water quality index for Canada. Water
Research (Pergamon Press, Great Britain) 9:821-833.
Jankowski, W.A. and M.K. Botz. 1974. Field procedures manual—collection,
analysis and reporting of water quality samples (preliminary draft).
Water Quality Bureau, Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences, Helena. 70 pp.
Jensen, I.B. 1975. Effects of surface configuration in water pollution con-
trol on semiarid surface mined lands. Animal and Range Sciences Department,
Montana State University, Bozeman.
Kaiser, J., P. Gorman, and M.K. Botz. 1975. Investigations of salinity in
hydrological systems in Montana. Technical Report 75-1, Water Quality
Bureau, Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences,
Helena. 102 pp.
Karp, R.W. and M.K. Botz. 1975. Water quality inventory and management
plan—Middle Yellowstone River Basin, Montana. Water Quality Bureau,
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena. 177 pp.
Karp, R.W., D.A. Klarich, and M.K. Botz. 1975b. Water quality inventory and
management plan—Lower Yellowstone River Basin, Montana. Water Quality
Bureau, Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena,
136 pp.
1976a. Water quality inventory and management plan— Upper
Yellowstone Basin, Montana. Water Quality Bureau, Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena. 153 pp.
Karp, R.W., W.H. Garvin, M.K. Botz, and D.A. Klarich. 1976b. Waste load
allocation investigation of the Yellowstone River in the vicinity of
Billings, Montana (in preparation). Water Quality Bureau, Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena.
Klarich, D.A. 1976. Periphyton community structure in the Yellowstone River
(Laurel to Huntley, Montana) and estimates of primary production
(preliminary draft). Water Quality Bureau, Billings Branch Office,
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Billings. 107 pp.
Klarich, D.A. and J.C. Wright. 1974. Effect of removal of wastewater treat-
ment plant effluent from the Madison River, Yellowstone National Park.
A final report for contract CX 6000-3-0075, National Park Service,
Yellowstone National Park, Mammoth, Wyoming. 44 pp.
Knudson, K. and D. Swanson. 1976. Effects of decreased water quantity and
increased nutrient additions on algal biomass accumulation, and subsequently,
the dissolved oxygen balance of the Yellowstone River. Montana Department
of Fish and Game, Helena.
386
Koch, R. 1977. The effect of altered streamflow on the hydrology and geo-
morphology of the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana. Yellowstone Impact
Study technical report No. 7. Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation, Helena.
Lee, G.F. and A.W. Hoodley. 1967. Biological activity in relation to chemical
equilibrium composition of natural waters. In_: Equilibrium concepts in
natural water systems. American Chemical Society Advances in Chemistry
Series, 67:319-338.
Lewis, K.F. and J.M. Smith. 1973. Upgrading existing lagoons. National
Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Lund, J.W.G. 1965. The ecology of freshwater phytoplankton. Biological
Review 40:231-293.
Mackenthun, K. 1969. The practice of water pollution biology. Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, United States Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. 281 pp.
Madsen, R. 1975. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, Montana. Unpublished da
Manfredi, J. 1976. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, Montana. Personal
communication.
Manges, N.L., R.I. Lipper, L.S. Murphy, W.L. Powers, and L.A. Schmid. 1975. Tree
ment and ultimate disposal of cattle feedlot wastes. EPA-660/2-75-013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Marcuson, P. and G.6. Bishop. 1973. South central Montana fisheries study--
inventory of the waters of the project area. Job progress report:
Project F-20-R-16, Job I-a, Fisheries Division, Montana Department of
Fish and Game, Billings. 11 pp.
McClelland, N.I. 1974. Water Quality Index application in the Kansas River
Basin. EPA-907/9-74-001 , United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Kansas City, Missouri. 226 pp.
McKee, J.E. and H.W. Wolf, eds. 1974. Water quality criteria. 2nd edition.
Publication 3-A, California State Water Resources Control Board,
Sacramento, California. 548 pp.
Middlebrooks, E.J., D.H. Falkenborg, R.F. Lewis, and D.J. Ehreth. 1974.
Upgrading wastewater stabilization ponds to meet new discharge standards.
Utah Water Research Laboratory Report PRWG 159-1. Logan, Utah.
Millipore Corporation. 1972. Biological analysis of water and wastewater.
Application Manual AM 302. Bedford, Massachusetts. 80 pp.
Missouri River Basin Inter-Agency Committee. 1969. Comprehensive framework
study. Volumes 1-9.
Montana Department of Community Affairs. 1976 (December). Economic conditions
in Montana: a report to the Governor. Research and Information Systems
Division, Helena. 35 pp.
387
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. 1972. Yellowstone
County--Water pollution control report. Water Quality Bureau, Billings
Branch Office, Environmental Sciences Division, Billings. 22 pp.
1973. Summary of state and federal water pollution control laws,
water pollution control legislation, status of municipal and industrial
dischargers. Montana Water Pollution Control Report, Water Quality Bureau,
Environmental Sciences Division, Helena. 10 pp.
1975. Montana water pollution control program plan for fiscal
year 1976. Water Quality Bureau, Environmental Sciences Division, Helena.
99 pp.
1976. Water quality in Montana. Report prepared for the
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Public Law 92-500, Section
305(b). Water Quality Bureau, Environmental Sciences Division, Helena.
36 pp.
. Montana Water quality standards. MAC 16-2. 1 4( 1 0)-Sl 4480.
Helena. 26 pp.
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1974. Draft environ-
mental impact statement on the proposed Montana Power Company, Puget
Sound Power and Light Company, Portland General Electric Company, Pacific
Power and Light Company, and Washington Water Power Company, Col strip
electrical generating units 3 & 4, 500 kilovolt KV transmission lines
from Colstrip to Hot Springs, Montana, and associated facilities.
Volumes 1-4. Energy Planning Division. Helena.
1975. A study to evaluate potential physical, biological, and water
use impacts of water withdrawals and water development on the middle and
lower portions of the Yellowstone River drainage in Montana. Water
Resources Division, Helena.
. 1976 (December). Yellowstone River Basin: draft environmental
impact statement for water reservation applications. Two volumes. Water
Resources Division, Helena. 412 pp.
1977 (January). The future of the Yellowstone River. . .? Water
Resources Division, Helena. 107 pp.
Montana Energy Advisory Council. 1976 (June). Montana energy position paper:
a Montana Energy Advisory Council staff report, by Theodore H. Clack, Jr.
Helena. 56 pp.
Montana State Board of Health, Helena; State Department of Health, Bismarck,
North Dakota; and the United States Public Health Service (HEW, Region
VI). 1956. Yellowstone River pollution study, November, 1 955--
Pollution of the Yellowstone River as related to taste and odor problems
in municipal water supplies in Montana and North Dakota. Helena. 31 pp.
Montana Water Quality Bureau. 1975. Open-file data. Billings.
Montana Water Resources Board. An atlas of water resources in Montana by
hydrologic basin. Helena.
388
Moseley, J.C. II. 1974. Establishment of operational guidelines for Texas
coastal zone managment. Final report on example application I. Civil
Engineering Department, University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Mudge, L.K., G.F. Schiefelbein, C.T. Li, and R.H. Moore. 1974. The gasification
of coal. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.
Muller, W. 1953. Nitrogen content and pollution of streams. Water Pollution
Abstracts 28(2), Abstract No. 454.
National Commission on Water Quality. 1976. Report to the Congress. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. March 18.
National Technical Advisory Committee. 1968. Water quality criteria. Report
to the Secretary of the Interior, United States Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. 20 pp.
North Central Power Study Coordinating Committee. 1971 (October). North
central power study: report of phase I. Volume I. Bureau of Reclamation,
Billings, Montana. 80 pp.
Northern Great Plains Resources Program. 1974. Water quality subgroup report.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Denver,
Colorado. 530 pp.
Persse, F.H. 1975. Strip mining techniques to minimize environmental damage
in the upper Missouri River Basin states. Bureau of Mines information
circular 1975. U.S. Department of Interior.
Peterman, L. and K. Knudson. 1975. Water quality proposal --Yellowstone River:
acquisition of water quality data necessary for the prediction of impacts
on aquatic communities in the Yellowstone River Basin resulting from
reduced stream flows associated with energy development. Montana
Department of Fish and Game, Miles City. 15 pp.
Peterman, L. 1977. Lower Yellowstone fishery. Montana Outdoors 8(2 ) : 33-35 .
Montana Department of Fish and Game, Helena.
Peters, J.C. 1962. The effects of sedimentation on trout embryo survival.
Third Seminar on Biological Problems in Water pollution, August: 275-279.
Project F-20-R, Montana Department of Fish and Game, Billings.
Pillsbury, A.F. and H.F. Blaney, 1966. Salinity problems and management in
river systems. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers. March.
Rainwater, F.H. and L.L. Thatcher. 1960. Methods for collection and analysis
of water samples. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1454; United
States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 301 pp.
Rasmussen, S.M. 1968. Composition and structure of macrophyte vegetation of
the Firehole River, Yellowstone National Park, as related to physical and
chemical factors. M.S. thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 46 pp.
389
Richards, L.A., ed. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils.
USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 60, U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff, United
States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Robinove, C.J., R.H. Langford, and J.W. Brookhart. 1958. Saline-water resources
of North Dakota. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1428; United
States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 72 pp.
Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists. 1972. Geologic atlas of the Rocky
Mountain Region: United States of America. Denver. 331 pp.
Roeder, T.S. 1966. Ecology of diatom communities of the upper Madison River
system, Yellowstone National Park. Ph.D. thesis, Montana State University,
Bozeman. 85 pp.
Rubin, E.S. and F.C. McMichael. 1975. Impact of regulations on coal conver-
sion plants. Environmental Science and Technology. February.
Ruff, J.F., M.W. Skinner, J.W. Keys III, and D. Waugaman. 1972. A remote
sensing study of sediment in the CI arks Fork Yellowstone River. Prepared
for the Bureau of Reclamation, Denver; Civil Engineering Department,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 95 pp.
Salvato, J. 1958. Environmental sanitation. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York. 637 pp.
Schmidt, J. 1976. Montana Department of State Lands. Personal communication.
Scofield, C.S. 1936. The salinity of irrigation water. Smithsonian Report
for 1935.
Seghetti , L. 1951. Correspondence to the project engineer from Montana State
College, Agricultural Experiment Station, Bozeman, Montana (Aug. 15).
Referenced in Water Quality Criteria, Publication 3-A, California State
Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, California, p. 113.
SERNCO. 1974. Applicant's environmental impact assessment for a proposed
gasification project in Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming.
Slack, K.V. et al . 1973. Methods for collection and analysis of aquatic
biological and microbiological samples. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques
of Water Resources Inventory, books, chapter A4. United States Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 165 pp.
Snedecor, G.W. 1946. Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press.
Ames, Iowa.
Soltero, R.A. 1971. Linological studies on Bighorn Lake (Yellowtail Dam) and
its tributaries. Ph.D. thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 271 pp.
Soltera, R.A. et al . 1973. Effects of impoundment on the water quality of
the Bighorn River. Water Research (Pergamon Press, Great Britain)
7:343-354.
390
Sprindler, J.C. Field investigation: Yellowstone River between Laurel and
Huntley (1965). Report on file with the Water Quality Bureau, Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Billings. 10 pp.
Stadnyk, L. 1971. Factors affecting the distribution of stoneflies in the
Yellowstone River, Montana. Ph.D. Thesis, Montana State University,
Bozeman. 36 pp.
State Conservation Needs Committee. 1970. Montana soil and water conservation
needs inventory. Soil Conservation Service, Bozeman. 1972 pp.
Sylvester, R.O. and R.W. Seabloom. 1963 (September). Quality and signi-
ficance of irrigation return flow. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Thomas, J.L. 1975. Water requirements and wastewater potential of coal-
energy facilities. Proceedings of Fort Union Coal Field Symposium,
held at Eastern Montana College in Billings, Montana. April 25 and 26.
Thurston, R.V., R.J. Luedtke, and R.C. Russo. 1975. Completion report:
upper Yellowstone River water quality, August 1973 to August 1974.
Project No. A-081-M0NT, Montana University Joint Water Resources Research
Center, Report No. 68; Fisheries Bioassay Laboratory, Montana State
University, Bozeman. 57 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1976. Draft environmental impact statement:
Crow ceded area coal leases, Tracts II and III, Westmoreland Resources.
Appendix F: Hydrology. DES 76-30. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bill ings.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1962. Drinking water
standards, 1962. Public Health Service Publication No. 956.
Washington, D.C. 61 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1966-74a (annual publication). Water resources
data for Montana. Part 1. Surface Water records. Water Resources
Division, Geological Survey, Helena, Montana.
• 1966-74b (annual publication). Water resources data for Montana.
Part 2. Water quality records. Water Resources Division, Geological
Survey, Helena, Montana.
1968. State of Montana: major, submajor, and minor drainage
basins (map). Geological Survey, Washington, D.C
• 1969. Reconnaissance report on Moorhead Unit. Montana-Wyoming,
Powder Division, Missouri River Project. Upper Missouri Project Office,
Bureau of Reclamation, Great Falls, Montana.
• 1972. Report on resources of eastern Montana basins. Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Program. Bureau of Reclamation, Billings, Montana 128 pp.
391
1974. El Paso coal gasification project, draft environmental
impact statement.
. 1974. Water resources data for Montana. Part 1. Surface water
records. Water Resources Division, Geological Survey, Helena, Montana.
289 pp.
. 1974. Water resources data for Montana. Part 2. Water quality
records. Water Resources Division, Geological Survey, Helena, Montana.
194 pp.
1975. Otter creek study site. EMRIA Report 1. Bureau of Land
Management.
. 1976. Water-resources investigations of the U.S. Geological
Survey in the Northern Great Plains coal region of eastern Montana,
1975-1976. Open-file report; Water Resources Division, Geological
Survey, Helena, Montana.
U.S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. 1973. Land use recommendations
for the Pryor Mountains. Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service.
Washington, D.C.
1974a. Pryor Mountains complex land-use decisions. Bureau of
Land Management and Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
1974b. Summary: Decker-Birney resource study. Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service. Washington, D.C. 89 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Yellowstone National Park
baseline water quality survey report. Regions VII and VIII, Kansas
City, Missouri. 174 pp.
1973. Methods and practice for controling water pollution from
agricultural nonpoint sources. EPA-430/9-73-015. Washington, D.C.
. 1973. Methods for identifying and evaluating the nature and
extent of nonpoint sources of pollution. EPA-430/9-73-014.
Washington, D.C.
. 1973. Water quality criteria, 1972. Report of the Committee
on Water Quality Criteria, EPA-R3-73-033. Environmental Studies Board,
National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering.
Washington, D.C. 594 pp.
. 1974a. Methods for the chemical analysis of water and wastes.
Cincinnati, Ohio.
. 1974b. National water quality inventory--1974 report to Congress.
Volume I. EPA-440/9-74-001 . Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Washington, D.C. 305 pp.
1975- National eutrophication survey: national eutrophication
survey methods, 1973-1976. Working paper series: Working Paper No. 175,
National Environmental Research Center, Corvallis, Oregon and Las Vegas,
Nevada. 91 pp.
392
. 1976. Draft first year progress report of a technology assessment
of western energy resources development. Contract No. 63-01-1916. Office
of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
. 1976. Quality criteria for water. EPA-440/9-76-023. Washington,
D.C. 501 pp.
Utah State University Foundation. 1969. The characteristics and pollution
problems of irrigation return flows. U.S. Department of Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
Van Voast, W.A. 1974. Hydrologic effects of strip coal mining in southeastern
Montana - emphasis: one year of mining near Decker. Bulletin 93.
Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology, Butte.
Van Voast, W.A., R.B. Hedges, and G.K. Pagenkopf. 1975. Hydrologic impacts
of coal mine effluents and spoil leachates. Proceedings of Fort Union
Coal Field Symposium held at Eastern Montana College in Billings,
Montana, on April 25 and 26.
Van Voast, W.A. and R.B. Hedges. 1975. Hydrogeologic aspects of existing and
proposed strip coal mines near Decker, southeastern Montana. Bulletin 97,
Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology, Butte.
1976. Hydrogeologic conditions and projections related to mining
near Colstrip, southeastern Montana. Open-file report. Montana
College of Mineral Science and Technology, Butte.
Whalen, I.E. 1951. The direct effect of turbidity on fishes. Bulletin of
Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College. 48(2):l-27.
Whalen, S.C., P.J. Garrison, and R.W. Gregory. April 15, 1976. Limnology of
the Tongue River Reservoir, existing and potential impact of coal strip
mining. Second progress report. Cooperative Fishery Research Unit,
Department of Biology, Montana State University, Bozeman. 70 pp.
Wright, J.C. and I.K. Mills. Productivity studies on the Madison River,
Yellowstone National Park. Limnology and Oceanography 12(4): 568-577 .
Wright, J.C. and R.A. Soltero. 1973. Limnology of Yellowtail Reservoir and
the Bighorn River. EPA-R3-73-002. Ecological Research Series. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 105 pp.
393
MONTANA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
A CONSERVATION
Helena, Montana
\
?
h,
S™
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11